ArticleEuropean heart journal. Imaging methods and practice2024
Cumulative radiation dose from medical imaging in paediatric congenital heart disease patients with epicardial cardiac implantable electronic devices.
Article in European heart journal. Imaging methods and practice, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Aims: To determine whether paediatric congenital heart disease (CHD) patients with epicardial cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) receive high cumulative effective doses (CEDs) of ionizing radiation from medical imaging tests. Methods and results: We compared 28 paediatric CHD patients with epicardial CIEDs (cases) against 40 patients with no CIED matched by age at operation, sex, surgical era, and CHD diagnosis (controls). We performed a retrospective review of radiation exposure from medical imaging exams between 2006 and 2022. Radiation dose from computed tomography (CT) and X-ray radiography was calculated using the National Cancer Institute Radiation Dosimetry Tool. We performed univariate analysis to compare the CED between the two groups. In the case subgroup, we convened experts' review to adjudicate the prevalence of CT exams that should have been performed with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the absence of a CIED. Children (median age 2.5 years at implant) with CIEDs received significantly higher median CED compared with matched controls (6.90 vs. 1.72 mSv, Conclusion: Paediatric CHD patients with CIED received four times higher CED than matched controls. Improved access to medical imaging tests without ionizing radiation, such as MRI, could potentially reduce the ED in CIED patients by up to five times.
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.