This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Morin, R. L. Articles by McCollough, C. H. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Morin, R. L. Articles by McCollough, C. H. Related Collections Other Ethics and Policy CT and MRI Chronic ischemic heart disease Coronary circulation

(Circulation. 2003;107:917.)
© 2003 American Heart Association, Inc.

Special Review: Current Perspective

Radiation Dose in Computed Tomography of the Heart

Richard L. Morin, PhD; Thomas C. Gerber, MD; Cynthia H. McCollough, PhD

From the Department of Radiology (R.L.M., T.C.G.) and Division of Cardiovascular Diseases (T.C.G.), Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Fla, and the Department of Radiology (C.H.M.), Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

Reprint requests to Richard L. Morin, PhD, Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, 4500 San Pablo Rd, Jacksonville, FL 32224. E-mail morin.richard{at}mayo.edu

Key Words: arteriosclerosis • calcium • imaging • radiation dose • tomography

Currently, computed tomographic (CT) imaging of the heart is mainly used for the quantification of coronary artery calcification as an indirect measure of coronary plaque burden^1,2 and, less frequently, for minimally invasive coronary angiography.³ CT imaging of the heart and coronary arteries without unsharpness due to motion artifact first became possible with the introduction of electron beam computed tomography (EBCT) in 1983.⁴ More recently, so-called multislice spiral computed tomographic (MSCT) scanners with gantry rotation speeds fast enough to produce diagnostic images of the heart under certain conditions have become widely available.⁵ As a consequence, cardiac CT imaging, most often performed for the purpose of calcium scoring,² is increasingly applied to the general public. In many centers, patients have access to such studies without physician referral. This has created concerns for public health because of the radiation dose associated with CT imaging.^6–8

Many clinicians and researchers working with patients with cardiovascular diseases may yet be unfamiliar with the radiation doses that are received during various cardiac CT imaging protocols and how they differ between the various scanner types that are currently used. To further complicate matters, radiation dose estimates can be expressed in various ways. For these reasons, the doses reported in previous publications on cardiac CT have varied widely, and it is not always clear what parameters were being reported.^3,9–11

The purpose of this article is to discuss the current concepts of radiation dose measurement and estimation in CT imaging and to provide comparative estimates for radiation doses received during cardiac examinations with use of EBCT or MSCT. This information may be helpful to physicians who perform calcium scoring, counsel patients contemplating cardiac calcium scoring, or are considering referring their patients for such studies.

Scanner Types

EBCT scanners acquire 1 scan at a time, using a technique termed "prospective ECG-triggering," in which radiation is produced only during a predetermined instant of the cardiac cycle.⁴ With current technology, MSCT scanners can acquire several (currently 2, 4, 8, or 16) parallel scans simultaneously, using either prospective ECG-triggering or another technique termed "retrospective gating." When retrospective gating is used, radiation is produced and image data are acquired continuously throughout the cardiac cycle, although images are usually reconstructed only during ventricular diastole.⁵ The continuous production of radiation throughout the cardiac cycle causes the radiation dose of retrospectively gated studies to be higher than that of prospectively triggered studies if the degree of image noise is to be equivalent in both types of studies.

As with conventional x-ray equipment, image noise in CT images decreases and image quality increases with the number of photons received by the detector array. The number of photons received by the detector array is dependent on the number of photons produced by the x-ray tube and the degree of photon attenuation by the patient’s body. In addition, smaller scan widths result in higher image noise because of the lower number of photons used in the image formation. The number of photons produced by the x-ray tube increases with the x-ray tube voltage, which is expressed in peak kilovolts (kVp), and with the product of the tube current multiplied by the exposure time, expressed in milliampere seconds (mAs). To maintain the degree of image noise for large patients or narrow scan widths, the number of photons produced by the tube must be increased. This results in an increase of the radiation dose received by the patient.¹²

With current EBCT technology, these scanner settings are limited to 130 kVp and 65 mAs, respectively, for the 100-ms exposure time used for cardiac imaging.¹³ Therefore, adjustments of the scanner settings to compensate for increased attenuation, eg, in patients with large body size, are not possible. In contrast, MSCT scanners available from various manufacturers allow modification of a wider range of scan parameters to adjust for patients’ body size to avoid an increase of image noise due to increased photon attenuation. Therefore, the variability of the MSCT scanner radiation doses reported in the literature may in part be due to differences in these scanner settings.

To directly compare radiation doses delivered by EBCT and the various MSCT scanners, it is important to give specific information about the MSCT scan parameter settings and the resultant image noise.¹² In addition, it is essential to specify the type of dose parameter being compared.

Fundamental Concepts in Radiation Dose

It is important to distinguish "radiation exposure," which relates to the quantity of ionization events in air that are produced by x-ray photons, from "radiation dose" ("absorbed radiation dose"), which describes the amount of radiation energy deposited in the patient’s body as a result of exposure. Unfortunately, the terms "exposure" and "dose" are sometimes used interchangeably. Radiation exposure is usually a measured quantity, whereas the absorbed dose is typically calculated from the exposure and from estimates of energy absorption per body mass unit (eg, kilograms of body weight). The fact that radiation dose can be expressed in many different ways makes it difficult to compare doses that have been reported for specific CT applications in the published literature.

The fundamental radiation dose parameter in CT is the computed tomography dose index (CTDI).¹⁴ The volume CTDI (CTDI_vol), a derivative of the CTDI, can be used to express the average dose delivered to the scan volume for a specific examination. Another important parameter is the effective dose (E), which is useful in assessing and comparing the potential biologic risk of a specific examination.¹⁵ The CTDI is measured, whereas E and other radiation dose parameters discussed below are calculated from the CTDI.

For MSCT systems, until recently, differing assumptions were made in the calculation of derived radiation dose parameters, and these were surrounded by controversy. In addition to the possible differences in scanner settings mentioned above, this is another reason why the results of MSCT dosimetry could vary by a factor of 4 or more. These definitional issues were resolved in a consensus agreement on CT dosimetry parameters by the International Electrotechnical Commission.¹⁶ The following sections will discuss the radiation dose parameters put forth in this international standard and the relationships among them. The various parameters with their units of measure are summarized in Table 1.

View this table: [in this window] [in a new window]   TABLE 1. Radiation Dosimetry Parameters

CTDI
The CTDI is usually measured with thermoluminescent dosimeters,¹⁷ but other measurement techniques are available. This measurement is very labor-intensive and therefore is rarely performed. The measured results represent absorbed dose, and the SI unit of measurement is the gray (Gy). The conventional unit is the rad. The CTDI value represents the integral under the radiation dose profile in the z-axis (Figure 1) of a single scan that would produce 1 tomographic image (Figure 2). The maximum of the radiation dose profile is termed the "peak dose."

View larger version (35K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 1. Coordinate system used for computed tomographic scanning. The x- and y-axes are oriented "transaxially," that is, horizontally and vertically within the plane of a scan. Successive parallel scans are arranged "axially" along the z-axis. The "width" of an individual scan is determined along the z-axis.

View larger version (18K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 2. Distribution of radiation dose in a single CT scan. In an ideal situation, radiation dose would drop sharply at the edges of a scan. In an actual situation, however, the radiation dose profile broadens gradually at the edges of a scan with tails at either side. These tails are due to both x-ray beam divergence and to internal radiation scatter by the body tissues. The maximum of the radiation dose profile represents the "peak dose."

CTDI₁₀₀
The CTDI₁₀₀ is a measured parameter of radiation exposure. This measurement is more convenient than the CTDI and is the measurement of choice performed by medical physicists in the clinical setting. It is obtained with an ionization chamber (Figure 3) that integrates the radiation exposure of a single axial scan over a length of 100 mm.^18–20 The ionization events occurring in the chamber produce a current that is proportional to the number of ionization events.

View larger version (102K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 3. Instrumentation for measurement of radiation exposure in computed tomography. The white arrow indicates the ionization chamber; black arrowhead, Plexiglas phantom.

The ionization chamber is placed in a commercially available, round polymethylmethacrylate (Plexiglas) phantom of 16- or 32-cm diameter (Figure 3). The SI unit of measure is coulomb/kg (C/kg). The conventional unit is the roentgen (R). The CTDI₁₀₀ is measured in the center of the Plexiglas phantom, as well as at peripheral locations (at the 12, 3, 6, and 9 o’clock positions) to represent the spatial distribution of the radiation exposure. The measured exposure can be converted to dose as described in the next section.

CTDI_w
The CTDI_w is the weighted average of the CTDI₁₀₀ measurements at the center and the peripheral locations of the phantom. This parameter reflects the average absorbed dose over the x and y dimensions (Figure 1) of the Plexiglas phantom as an approximation of the average radiation dose to a cross section of a patient’s body. The CTDI_w is calculated using Equation 1:

The term f reflects the difference between the absorption of radiation in air and the absorption in another media. It is used to convert radiation exposure, expressed in C/kg, into absorbed dose, expressed in Gy (the SI unit for CTDI_w). For the calculation of CTDI_w, the appropriate value for f is 33.7 Gy x C^-1 x kg^-1 (in conventional units, 0.87 rad/R).²¹

Multiple Scan Average Dose
The multiple scan average dose (MSAD) is the average radiation dose over the central scan of a CT study consisting of multiple parallel scans¹⁴ (Figure 4). The MSAD correctly describes the average patient dose only if the scan protocol uses more than just a few parallel scans.¹⁴ Like the CTDI, the MSAD requires thermoluminescent dosimeters for measurement^17,22 and is rarely performed. Typically, the MSAD is higher than the peak of the radiation dose profile of a single scan (Figure 2) by a factor of 2 to 3. The SI unit of measurement for the MSAD is the Gy.

View larger version (24K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 4. Typical relationship of the distributions of radiation dose of multiple parallel scans. Depending on the relationship of scan width and patient table advance between successive scans, an accumulation of dose due to scan overlap may occur. The value of the multiple scan average dose (MSAD) is determined by the extent of slice overlap and is valid only if the scan protocol uses more than just a few scans.

The numeric value of the MSAD is directly related to the spatial separation of successive scans. This spatial separation is dependent on the advance of the patient table during a spiral CT examination. The table advance is quantified as a dimensionless variable termed "pitch." Since the advent of MSCT, several definitions of pitch have been used because of controversy as to whether the table advance should be expressed relative to the width of a single scan or relative to the combined width of all simultaneously acquired scans. This is one of the reasons for the high degree of variance among radiation dose values reported in the literature for cardiac MSCT.

This controversy was resolved in the international consensus agreement on CT dosimetry parameters.¹⁶ Pitch is now defined as the distance of patient table advance in the z direction (mm) per 1 rotation of the gantry divided by the total nominal scan width. For MSCT systems, the total nominal scan width includes all simultaneously acquired scans and corresponds to the distance (mm) in the z direction covered by all detector rows that are active during a scan (Figure 5). If the patient table advance during 1 gantry rotation is less than the total nominal scan width (ie, pitch <1), scan overlap occurs. Scan overlap increases as pitch decreases.

View larger version (31K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 5. Examples of different degrees of pitch during a CT examination, relative to total nominal scan width in an MSCT scanner acquiring 4 slices simultaneously per gantry rotation. Upper panel, Pitch=1 (no scan overlap). Center panel, Pitch=2 (gap between the scans acquired during 2 successive gantry rotations). Lower panel, Pitch=0.5 (overlap by 50% of total nominal scan width between 2 successive gantry rotations).

The MSAD for non-spiral scans can be estimated from the CTDI using Equation 2:

where N is the number of scans, T is the nominal scan width (mm), and I is the distance between scans (mm). For MSCT systems, N x T is the total nominal scan width, and I corresponds to the patient table advance during 1 gantry rotation. Therefore, given the definition of pitch above, the MSAD for spiral scans can be expressed as

From this equation, it follows that if pitch is equal to 1, the MSAD is equal to the CTDI. Therefore, a correct and consistent definition of pitch is crucial to ensure comparability of MSAD calculations among different CT imaging systems and protocols. The MSAD increases with a decrease in pitch.

CTDI_vol
The volume CTDI (CTDI_vol) is a new radiation dose parameter agreed on by the International Electrotechnical Commission.¹⁶ It is based on the same concept as the MSAD, but unlike the MSAD, it is derived from the CTDI_w. This is advantageous because the CTDI_w is calculated from data that are easily measured (CTDI₁₀₀). The CTDI_vol averages radiation dose over x, y, and z directions (CTDI_w represents the average exposure in the x-y plane only). The CTDI_vol for single-slice scanners is defined as:

Similar to the conversion of the MSAD for non-spiral scanners (Equation 2) to the MSAD for spiral scanners (Equation 3), the CTDI_vol for MSCT can be defined as:

The CTDI_vol is now the preferred expression of radiation dose in CT dosimetry. As with the MSAD, the correct and consistent definition of pitch is crucial for accurate and comparable determinations of the CTDI_vol.

Most current CT scanners can display the value for the CTDI_vol on the operator’s console. This allows the clinician to compare the radiation doses that patients receive from different imaging protocols. Similar to the CTDI_w, the CTDI_vol is expressed in SI units of Gy.

However, both the CTDI_vol and the MSAD have an important disadvantage as measures of radiation dose: Their numeric value depends only on the spatial distribution of individual scans and is unrelated to the total number of successive scans in a CT examination (ie, total scan length).

Dose-Length Product
The dose-length product (DLP)²¹ is an indicator of the integrated radiation dose of an entire CT examination. The DLP incorporates the number of scans and the scan width (ie, total scan length). The definition of DLP is:

Therefore, DLP increases with an increase in total scan length or with variables that affect the CTDI_w (eg, tube voltage or tube current) or the CTDI_vol (eg, pitch). Because scan length is expressed in centimeters, the SI unit for DLP is milligray (mGy) x cm. The display of the DLP value on the console of the CT scanner is required by law in many countries in Europe.

Although the DLP reflects most closely the radiation dose for a specific CT examination, its numeric value is affected by variances in patient anatomy (eg, the value of DLP is higher for taller patients only because of their greater height). Therefore, the CTDI_vol is more useful in designing CT imaging protocols and comparing radiation doses among different protocols.

Effective Dose
The effective dose reflects the nonuniform radiation absorption of partial body exposures relative to a whole body radiation dose and allows comparisons of risk among different CT examination protocols. The SI unit of measure is the sievert (Sv) or millisievert (mSv). The conventional unit is the rem. The effective dose is calculated from information about dose to individual organs and the relative radiation risk assigned to each organ.^15,23 A technique called Monte Carlo simulation²⁴ is used to determine specific organ doses by simulating the absorption and scattering of x-ray photons in various tissues by using a mathematical model of the human body. Appropriate organ risk-weighting factors have been published by the International Commission on Radiological Protection.¹⁵ However, several data sets and calculation methods exist for determining the effective dose. Therefore, results of the calculation of the effective dose can vary, depending on which method is used, but they are generally in good agreement.²³

A reasonable approximation of the effective dose can be obtained using the equation²¹

where E is the effective dose and k is a conversion factor (unit, mSv x mGy^-1 x cm^-1) that varies dependent on the body region that is imaged (k values have been published for the head, neck, thorax, abdomen, and pelvis).²¹ Typical effective dose values for frequently performed radiological examinations are listed in Table 2.

View this table: [in this window] [in a new window]   TABLE 2. Effective Dose of Selected Radiological Examinations

Radiation Dose in CT Examinations of the Heart

The CTDI_vol and effective dose values for 3 CT scanning systems that are currently used for cardiac imaging are given in Table 3. These data represent the radiation doses of typical protocols for coronary calcium scanning and CT coronary angiography. The data in Table 3 demonstrate that, in MSCT scanners that acquire 4 scans simultaneously, the radiation dose for a prospectively triggered calcium-scoring examination is approximately 25% of the radiation dose used for a retrospectively gated calcium-scoring examination. With triggered acquisition, the radiation doses of EBCT and MSCT calcium-scoring studies are approximately equivalent.

View this table: [in this window] [in a new window]   TABLE 3. Comparison of Radiation Parameters for Computed Tomography of the Heart for Quantification of Coronary Artery Calcium and for Coronary Angiography With Different Scanners

New Technical Advances

The first generation of MSCT scanners can acquire up to 4 scans simultaneously. Very recently, a new generation of MSCT scanners has become commercially available that can simultaneously acquire up to 16 scans with a width under 1 mm.

MSCT scan acquisition techniques have been described that are designed to reduce the radiation dose of spiral scanner by decreasing the tube current during certain positions of the x-ray source relative to the patient’s body or during predetermined portions of the R-R interval of the ECG.^25–27 The first approach takes advantage of the fact that, because of the elliptic cross-section of the human body, the attenuation of the x-ray beam is less if it traverses the body from front to back (or vice versa) than when it traverses the body from a lateral aspect. Therefore, to generate the same degree of image noise in all projections, fewer photons need to be produced when the x-ray source is anterior or posterior to the chest than when the x-ray source is lateral to the chest.^25,26 The second approach presumes that a high photon density resulting in high-quality images with low noise is required only during ventricular diastole.²⁷ The reasoning is that image reconstruction is usually performed during ventricular diastole because the likelihood of cardiac motion artifacts is lower during that period.

Summary

Radiation dose estimates for CT examinations of the heart are best expressed as CTDI_vol (in Gy), DLP (in mGy x cm), and effective dose E (in mSv). These parameters are precisely defined and allow comparisons of the radiation doses of various CT imaging protocols. Currently, there are no federal or state regulations for acceptable radiation doses for specific CT examinations in the United States. Physicians referring for or performing cardiac CT examinations should understand the absorbed radiation doses associated with various protocols. This understanding may aid in making decisions as to whether a cardiac CT examination is indicated and which protocol addresses the clinical question at hand with the least radiation exposure. It is also important that reports of CT dosimetry in the growing body of literature on cardiac CT imaging be carefully worded and precisely defined, so that the absorbed radiation doses and potential risks of different protocols can be compared.

The calculation and comparison of radiation doses received from specific CT imaging protocols are complicated by new scan acquisition techniques designed to decrease radiation dose to the patient. Further studies will be needed to investigate the exact effects of such modifications on the parameters currently used to express radiation dose.

References

1. Budoff MJ, Diamond GA, Raggi P, et al. Continuous probabilistic prediction of angiographically significant coronary artery disease using electron beam tomography. Circulation. 2002; 105: 1791–1796.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
   
2. Rumberger JA, Brundage BH, Rader DJ, et al. Electron beam computed tomographic coronary calcium scanning: a review and guidelines for use in asymptomatic persons. Mayo Clin Proc. 1999; 74: 243–252.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
   
3. Achenbach S, Moshage W, Ropers D, et al. Value of electron-beam computed tomography for the noninvasive detection of high-grade coronary-artery stenoses and occlusions. N Engl J Med. 1998; 339: 1964–1971.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
   
4. Boyd DP, Lipton MJ. Cardiac computed tomography. Proc IEEE. 1983; 71: 298–307.
   
5. Gerber TC, Kuzo RS, Karstaedt N, et al. Current results and new developments of coronary angiography with use of contrast-enhanced computed tomography of the heart. Mayo Clin Proc. 2002; 77: 55–71.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
   
6. Stanley RJ. Inherent dangers in radiologic screening. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2001; 177: 989–992.[Free Full Text]
   
7. United States Food and Drug Administration Center for Devices and Radiological Health. Whole body scanning: using computed tomography (CT). Available at: http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/ct. Accessed June 26, 2002.
   
8. Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors home page. Available at: http://www.crcpd.org. Accessed June 26, 2002.
   
9. Rensing BJ, Bongaerts A, van Geuns RJ, et al. Intravenous coronary angiography by electron beam computed tomography: a clinical evaluation. Circulation. 1998; 98: 2509–2512.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
   
10. Nieman K, Oudkerk M, Rensing BJ, et al. Coronary angiography with multi-slice computed tomography. Lancet. 2001; 357: 599–603.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
    
11. Achenbach S, Ulzheimer S, Baum U, et al. Noninvasive coronary angiography by retrospectively ECG-gated multislice spiral CT. Circulation. 2000; 102: 2823–2828.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    
12. McCollough CH, Zink FE. Performance evaluation of a multi-slice CT system. Med Phys. 1999; 26: 2223–2230.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
    
13. McCollough CH, Zink FE, Morin RL. Radiation dosimetry for electron beam CT. Radiology. 1994; 192: 637–643.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    
14. Shope TB, Gagne RM, Johnson GC. A method for describing the doses delivered by transmission x-ray computed tomography. Med Phys. 1981; 8: 488–495.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
    
15. 1990 recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. Ann ICRP. 1991; 21: 1–201.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
    
16. International Electrotechnical Commission. Medical Electrical Equipment. Part 2–44: Particular Requirements for the Safety of X-ray Equipment for Computed Tomography. IEC publication No. 60601–2-44. International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) Central Office: Geneva, Switzerland, 2002.
    
17. Cameron J, Zimmerman D, Kenney G, et al. Thermoluminescent radiation dosimetry utilizing LiF. Health Phys. 1964; 10: 25–29.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
    
18. Suzuki A, Suzuki MN. Use of a pencil-shaped ionization chamber for measurement of exposure resulting from a computed tomography scan. Med Phys. 1978; 5: 536–539.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
    
19. Pavlicek W, Horton J, Turco R. Evaluation of the MDH Industries, Inc. pencil chamber for direct beam CT measurements. Health Phys. 1979; 37: 773–774.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
    
20. Jucius RA, Kambic GX. Measurements of computed tomography x-ray fields utilizing the partial volume effect. Med Phys. 1980; 7: 379–382.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
    
21. European Guidelines on Quality Criteria for Computed Tomography. Available at: http://www.drs.dk/guidelines/ct/quality/index.htm. Accessed June 26, 2002.
    
22. Cameron JR, Suntharalingam N, Kenney GN. Thermoluminescent Dosimetry. Madison, Wis: University of Wisconsin Press; 1968.
    
23. McCollough CH, Schueler BA. Calculation of effective dose. Med Phys. 2000; 27: 828–837.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
    
24. Morin RL. Monte Carlo Simulation in the Radiological Sciences. Boca Raton, Fla: CRC Press; 1988.
    
25. Gies M, Kalender WA, Wolf H, et al. Dose reduction in CT by anatomically adapted tube current modulation: I: simulation studies. Med Phys. 1999; 26: 2235–2247.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
    
26. Kalender WA, Wolf H, Suess C. Dose reduction in CT by anatomically adapted tube current modulation: II: Phantom measurements. Med Phys. 1999; 26: 2248–2253.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
    
27. Jakobs TF, Becker CR, Ohnesorge B, et al. Multislice helical CT of the heart with retrospective ECG gating: reduction of radiation exposure by ECG-controlled tube current modulation. Eur Radiol. 2002; 12: 1081–1086.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
    

This article has been cited by other articles:

				N. Hirai, J. Horiguchi, C. Fujioka, M. Kiguchi, H. Yamamoto, N. Matsuura, T. Kitagawa, H. Teragawa, N. Kohno, and K. Ito Prospective versus Retrospective ECG-gated 64-Detector Coronary CT Angiography: Assessment of Image Quality, Stenosis, and Radiation Dose Radiology, August 1, 2008; 248(2): 424 - 430. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. A. Bluemke, S. Achenbach, M. Budoff, T. C. Gerber, B. Gersh, L. D. Hillis, W. G. Hundley, W. J. Manning, B. F. Printz, M. Stuber, et al. Noninvasive Coronary Artery Imaging: Magnetic Resonance Angiography and Multidetector Computed Tomography Angiography: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association Committee on Cardiovascular Imaging and Intervention of the Council on Cardiovascular Radiology and Intervention, and the Councils on Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Disease in the Young Circulation, July 29, 2008; 118(5): 586 - 606. [Full Text] [PDF]

				P. Zanzonico Routine Quality Control of Clinical Nuclear Medicine Instrumentation: A Brief Review J. Nucl. Med., July 1, 2008; 49(7): 1114 - 1131. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				F. A. Mettler Jr, W. Huda, T. T. Yoshizumi, and M. Mahesh Effective Doses in Radiology and Diagnostic Nuclear Medicine: A Catalog Radiology, July 1, 2008; 248(1): 254 - 263. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				F Pugliese, A C Weustink, C Van Mieghem, F Alberghina, M Otsuka, W B Meijboom, N van Pelt, N R Mollet, F Cademartiri, G P Krestin, et al. Dual source coronary computed tomography angiography for detecting in-stent restenosis Heart, July 1, 2008; 94(7): 848 - 854. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M.T. Russell, J.R. Fink, F. Rebeles, K. Kanal, M. Ramos, and Y. Anzai Balancing Radiation Dose and Image Quality: Clinical Applications of Neck Volume CT AJNR Am. J. Neuroradiol., April 1, 2008; 29(4): 727 - 731. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M.-T. Wu, P. Yang, Y.-L. Huang, J.-S. Chen, C.-C. Chuo, C. Yeh, and R.-S. Chang Coronary Arterial Calcification on Low-Dose Ungated MDCT for Lung Cancer Screening: Concordance Study with Dedicated Cardiac CT Am. J. Roentgenol., April 1, 2008; 190(4): 923 - 928. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. P. Earls, E. L. Berman, B. A. Urban, C. A. Curry, J. L. Lane, R. S. Jennings, C. C. McCulloch, J. Hsieh, and J. H. Londt Prospectively Gated Transverse Coronary CT Angiography versus Retrospectively Gated Helical Technique: Improved Image Quality and Reduced Radiation Dose Radiology, March 1, 2008; 246(3): 742 - 753. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. Horiguchi, M. Kiguchi, C. Fujioka, Y. Shen, R. Arie, K. Sunasaka, and K. Ito Radiation Dose, Image Quality, Stenosis Measurement, and CT Densitometry Using ECG-Triggered Coronary 64-MDCT Angiography: A Phantom Study Am. J. Roentgenol., February 1, 2008; 190(2): 315 - 320. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. Rutten, I. Isgum, and M. Prokop Coronary Calcification: Effect of Small Variation of Scan Starting Position on Agatston, Volume, and Mass Scores Radiology, December 1, 2007; 246(1): 90 - 98. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				G. T. Wilson, P. Gopalakrishnan, and T. Tak Noninvasive Cardiac Imaging with Computed Tomography Clin. Med. Res., October 1, 2007; 5(3): 165 - 171. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. J. Einstein, K. W. Moser, R. C. Thompson, M. D. Cerqueira, and M. J. Henzlova Radiation Dose to Patients From Cardiac Diagnostic Imaging Circulation, September 11, 2007; 116(11): 1290 - 1305. [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. Deetjen, S. Mollmann, G. Conradi, A. Rolf, A. Schmermund, C. W Hamm, and T. Dill Use of automatic exposure control in multislice computed tomography of the coronaries: comparison of 16-slice and 64-slice scanner data with conventional coronary angiography Heart, September 1, 2007; 93(9): 1040 - 1043. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. Mahesh and D. D. Cody AAPM/RSNA Physics Tutorial for Residents: Physics of Cardiac Imaging with Multiple-Row Detector CT RadioGraphics, September 1, 2007; 27(5): 1495 - 1509. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. C. Weustink, W. B. Meijboom, N. R. Mollet, M. Otsuka, F. Pugliese, C. van Mieghem, R. Malago, N. van Pelt, M. L. Dijkshoorn, F. Cademartiri, et al. Reliable High-Speed Coronary Computed Tomography in Symptomatic Patients J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., August 21, 2007; 50(8): 786 - 794. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. A.G. Van Mieghem, A. Thury, W. B. Meijboom, F. Cademartiri, N. R. Mollet, A. C. Weustink, G. Sianos, P. P.T. de Jaegere, P. W. Serruys, and P. de Feyter Detection and characterization of coronary bifurcation lesions with 64-slice computed tomography coronary angiography Eur. Heart J., August 2, 2007; 28(16): 1968 - 1976. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. L. Hollingsworth, T. T. Yoshizumi, D. P. Frush, F. P. Chan, G. Toncheva, G. Nguyen, C. R. Lowry, and L. M. Hurwitz Pediatric Cardiac-Gated CT Angiography: Assessment of Radiation Dose Am. J. Roentgenol., July 1, 2007; 189(1): 12 - 18. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				G. Hur, S. W. Hong, S. Y. Kim, Y. H. Kim, Y. J. Hwang, W. R. Lee, and S. J. Cha Uniform Image Quality Achieved by Tube Current Modulation Using SD of Attenuation in Coronary CT Angiography Am. J. Roentgenol., July 1, 2007; 189(1): 188 - 196. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. H. McCollough, A. N. Primak, O. Saba, H. Bruder, K. Stierstorfer, R. Raupach, C. Suess, B. Schmidt, B. M. Ohnesorge, and T. G. Flohr Dose Performance of a 64-Channel Dual-Source CT Scanner Radiology, June 1, 2007; 243(3): 775 - 784. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				T. Okada, T. Yamada, Y. Murakami, N. Yoshida, Y. Ninomiya, T. Shimizu, J. Toyama, Y. Yoshida, T. Ito, N. Tsuboi, et al. Prevalence and Severity of Left Atrial Edema Detected by Electron Beam Tomography Early After Pulmonary Vein Ablation J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., April 3, 2007; 49(13): 1436 - 1442. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				E. Daghini, E. L. Ritman, and L. O. Lerman Examine Thy Heart With All Diligence: Evaluation of Cardiac Function Using Fast Computed Tomography Hypertension, February 1, 2007; 49(2): 249 - 256. [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. N. Primak, C. H. McCollough, M. R. Bruesewitz, J. Zhang, and J. G. Fletcher Relationship between Noise, Dose, and Pitch in Cardiac Multi-Detector Row CT RadioGraphics, November 1, 2006; 26(6): 1785 - 1794. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. J. Budoff, S. Achenbach, R. S. Blumenthal, J. J. Carr, J. G. Goldin, P. Greenland, A. D. Guerci, J. A.C. Lima, D. J. Rader, G. D. Rubin, et al. Assessment of Coronary Artery Disease by Cardiac Computed Tomography: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association Committee on Cardiovascular Imaging and Intervention, Council on Cardiovascular Radiology and Intervention, and Committee on Cardiac Imaging, Council on Clinical Cardiology Circulation, October 17, 2006; 114(16): 1761 - 1791. [Full Text] [PDF]

				F Cademartiri Is calcium the key for the assessment of progression/regression of coronary artery disease? Heart, September 1, 2006; 92(9): 1187 - 1188. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. A.G. Van Mieghem, F. Cademartiri, N. R. Mollet, P. Malagutti, M. Valgimigli, W. B. Meijboom, F. Pugliese, E. P. McFadden, J. Ligthart, G. Runza, et al. Multislice Spiral Computed Tomography for the Evaluation of Stent Patency After Left Main Coronary Artery Stenting: A Comparison With Conventional Coronary Angiography and Intravascular Ultrasound Circulation, August 15, 2006; 114(7): 645 - 653. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. Horiguchi, H. Yamamoto, N. Hirai, Y. Akiyama, C. Fujioka, K. Marukawa, H. Fukuda, and K. Ito Variability of repeated coronary artery calcium measurements on low-dose ECG-gated 16-MDCT. Am. J. Roentgenol., July 1, 2006; 187(1): W1 - W6. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				U. Hoffmann, A. J. Pena, R. C. Cury, S. Abbara, M. Ferencik, F. Moselewski, U. Siebert, T. J. Brady, and J. T. Nagurney Cardiac CT in Emergency Department Patients with Acute Chest Pain. RadioGraphics, July 1, 2006; 26(4): 963 - 978. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				T Flohr and B Ohnesorge Developments in CT Imaging, June 1, 2006; 18(2): 45 - 61. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				H. T. Abada, C. Larchez, B. Daoud, A. Sigal-Cinqualbre, and J.-F. Paul MDCT of the Coronary Arteries: Feasibility of Low-Dose CT with ECG-Pulsed Tube Current Modulation to Reduce Radiation Dose Am. J. Roentgenol., June 1, 2006; 186(6_Supplement_2): S387 - S390. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				P. Zanzonico, L. N. Rothenberg, and H. W. Strauss Radiation Exposure of Computed Tomography and Direct Intracoronary Angiography: Risk Has its Reward J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., May 2, 2006; 47(9): 1846 - 1849. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

U. Hoffmann, M. Ferencik, R. C. Cury, and A. J. Pena Coronary CT Angiography J. Nucl. Med., May 1, 2006; 47(5): 797 - 806.