Trial reportJournal of applied clinical medical physics2021
Radiation dose for 320-row dose-modulated dynamic coronary CT angiography.
Trial report in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Radiation dose for 320-row dose-modulated dynamic coronary CT angiography.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2021Trial
- Measurement of axial dose profile for wide detector CT using radiochromic films.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Dynamic coronary CT Angiography-Estimated coronary flow in Non-Obstructive, Plaque-free coronary Arteries: Association with dyslipidemia and diabetes.International journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature · 2022Article
- What are useful methods to reduce occupational radiation exposure among radiological medical workers, especially for interventional radiology personnel?Radiological physics and technology · 2022Review
- Recent technologies in cardiac imaging.Frontiers in medical technology · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe area detector 320-row CT scanner, which can cover the whole heart in one rotation, can aid in reducing radiation exposure during electrocardiography (ECG)-gated coronary CT angiography (CCTA). Recently, researchers have proposed dose-modulated dynamic CCTA with a 320-row scanner for the detection of functional myocardial ischemia. In the present study, we compared and validated the radiation dose of this method with that of the standard CCTA method and the latest diagnostic reference levels (DRLs). MATERIALS AND
methodsThe study included a total of 164 consecutive patients with suspected or known coronary artery disease (CAD) who underwent CCTA with a 320-row scanner. The patients were randomly divided into dynamic and standard CCTA groups, and the CT dose index (CTDIvol) and dose length product (DLP) calculated by the CT system were compared between the two protocols and with the latest DRL.
resultsStandard and dynamic CCTA scans were performed in 77 and 87 patients, respectively. CTDIvol was significantly higher for standard CCTA than for dynamic CCTA (41 ± 35 mGy vs. 22 ± 7 mGy, p = 0.0014). DLP was also significantly higher for standard CCTA than for dynamic CCTA (864 ± 702 mGy × cm vs. 434 ± 106 mGy × cm, p < .0001). For standard scans, CTDIvol and DLP exceeded the 2020 DRL in Japan in 16% (12/77) and 17% (13/77) of cases, respectively. In contrast, rates for the dynamic scan were only 1% (1/87) for CTDIvol and 0% (0/87) for DLP.
conclusionThe dose of radiation exposure during dynamic CCTA with a 320-row scanner does not exceed that of standard CCTA and is sufficient to meet the latest DRL. Thus, our results suggest that the method is safe from the perspective of radiation exposure.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.