Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31202772›Full record

ArticleJACC. Cardiovascular imaging2020

Application of Low Tube Potentials in CCTA: Results From the PROTECTION VI Study.

Thomas J Stocker, Jonathon Leipsic, Martin Hadamitzky, Marcus Y Chen, Ronen Rubinshtein, Simon Deseive, Mathias Heckner, Jeroen J Bax, Kakuya Kitagawa, Hugo Marques and 8 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract readComparative StudyMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in JACC. Cardiovascular imaging, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02996903 (Prospective Multicenter Registry On RadiaTion Dose Estimates Of Cardiac CT AngIOgraphy IN Daily Practice in 2017), which is not on this map. Cited by 27 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT02996903 completednot on this map

Prospective Multicenter Registry On RadiaTion Dose Estimates Of Cardiac CT AngIOgraphy IN Daily Practice in 2017

Typeobservational_patient_registrySponsorLMU KlinikumRan2017 to 2017Enrolled4,502ConditionsCoronary Artery Disease, Cardiac Disease, Malignancy, Second
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

27 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

18 authors.

Thomas J StockerMedizinische Klinik und Poliklinik I, Ludwig Maximilians-Universität, Munich, Germany; DZHK (German Center for Cardiovascular Research), Partner Site Munich Heart Alliance, Munich, Germany. Electronic address: thomas.stocker@med.uni-muenchen.de.
Jonathon LeipsicUniversity of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.
Martin HadamitzkyInstitut für Radiologie und Nuklearmedizin, Deutsches Herzzentrum München, Munich, Germany.
Marcus Y ChenNational Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland.
Ronen RubinshteinLady Davis Carmel Medical Center, Haifa, Israel.
Simon DeseiveMedizinische Klinik und Poliklinik I, Ludwig Maximilians-Universität, Munich, Germany; DZHK (German Center for Cardiovascular Research), Partner Site Munich Heart Alliance, Munich, Germany.
Mathias HecknerMedizinische Klinik und Poliklinik I, Ludwig Maximilians-Universität, Munich, Germany.
Jeroen J BaxDepartment of Cardiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands.
Kakuya KitagawaMie University Hospital, Tsu, Japan.
Hugo MarquesUNICA (Cardiovascular imaging Unit), Hospital da Luz, Lisbon, Portugal.
Axel SchmermundCardioangiologisches Centrum Bethanien, CCB, Frankfurt, Germany.
Claudio SilvaRadiology Department, Clinica Alemana de Santiago, Santiago, Chile.
John MahmarianHouston Methodist Hospital, Houston, Texas.
Joon-Won KangAsan Medical Center, Seoul, South Korea.
Erik L GroveAarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark; Department of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Health, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.
John LesserMinneapolis Heart Institute, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Steffen MassbergMedizinische Klinik und Poliklinik I, Ludwig Maximilians-Universität, Munich, Germany; DZHK (German Center for Cardiovascular Research), Partner Site Munich Heart Alliance, Munich, Germany.
Jörg HausleiterMedizinische Klinik und Poliklinik I, Ludwig Maximilians-Universität, Munich, Germany; DZHK (German Center for Cardiovascular Research), Partner Site Munich Heart Alliance, Munich, Germany. Electronic address: joerg.hausleiter@med.uni-muenchen.de.

Funding

Cardiovascular CT Clinical ResearchZIAHL006220 · NHLBI · NATIONAL HEART, LUNG, AND BLOOD INSTITUTE · PI CHEN, MARCUS · 2017 to 2025
$22.5M
Cardiovascular Clinical Section StudiesZICHL006199 · NHLBI · NATIONAL HEART, LUNG, AND BLOOD INSTITUTE · PI SACK, MICHAEL · 2017 to 2025
$8.8M
Intramural NIH HHS ZIA HL006220
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe aim of this study was to assess the use of low tube potentials for coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) in worldwide clinical practice and its influence on radiation exposure, contrast agent volume, and image quality.

backgroundCCTA is frequently used in clinical practice. Lowering of tube potential is a potent method to reduce radiation exposure and to economize contrast agent volume.

methodsCCTAs of 4,006 patients from 61 international study sites were analyzed regarding very-low (≤80 kVp), low (90 to 100 kVp), conventional (110 to 120 kVp), and high (≥130 kVp) tube potentials. The impact on dose-length product (DLP) and contrast agent volume was analyzed. Image quality was determined by evaluation of the diagnostic applicability and assessment of the objective image parameters signal-to-noise-ratio (SNR) and contrast-to-noise-ratio (CNR).

resultsWhen compared with conventional tube potentials, low tube potentials were used in 56% of CCTAs (≤80 kVp: 9%; 90 to 100 kVp: 47%), which varied among sites from 0% to 100%. Tube potential reduction was associated with low-cardiovascular risk profile, low body mass index (BMI), and new-generation scanners. Median radiation exposure was lowered by 68% or 50% and median contrast agent volume by 25% or 13% for tube potential protocols of ≤80 kVp or 90 to 100 kVp when compared with conventional tube potentials, respectively (all p < 0.001). With the use of lower tube potentials, the frequency of diagnostic scans was maintained (p = 0.41), whereas SNR and CNR significantly improved (both p < 0.001). Considering BMI eligibility criteria, 58% (n = 946) of conventionally scanned patients would have been suitable for low tube potential protocols, and 44% (n = 831) of patients scanned with 90 to 100 kVp would have been eligible for very-low tube potential CCTA imaging of ≤80 kVp.

conclusionsThis large international registry confirms the feasibility of tube potential reduction in clinical practice leading to lower radiation exposure and lower contrast volumes. The current registry also demonstrates that this strategy is still underused in daily practice. (PROspective multicenter registry on radiaTion dose Estimates of cardiac CT angIOgraphy iN daily practice in 2017 [PROTECTION-VI]; NCT02996903).

Indexed as

Computed Tomography AngiographyCoronary AngiographyAgedContrast MediaCoronary Artery DiseaseCoronary VesselsFeasibility StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPredictive Value of TestsProspective StudiesRadiation DosageRadiation ExposureRegistriesContrast Mediacardiac imagingcoronary computed tomography angiographydose-saving strategiesradiation dosetube potential

Identifiers

PMID31202772
PMCPMC8387300

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.