Clinical Question Influence on Radiation Dose of Cardiac CT Scan in Children
by
, , , and
Theodor Adla
1,2,*
,
Martin Kočí
2,
Vojtěch Suchánek
2,
Zuzana Šalagovičová
2,
Michal Polovinčák
2,
Lukáš Mikšík
2,
Jan Janoušek
3 and
Miloslav Roček
2 1
Department of Radiodiagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Institute for Clinical and Experimental Medicine, 140 21 Prague, Czech Republic
2
Department of Radiology, University Hospital Motol and 2nd Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, 150 06 Prague, Czech Republic
3
Children’s Heart Centre, University Hospital Motol and 2nd Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, 150 06 Prague, Czech Republic
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Children 2022, 9(8), 1172; https://doi.org/10.3390/children9081172
Submission received: 9 July 2022
/
Revised: 25 July 2022
/
Accepted: 4 August 2022
/
Published: 5 August 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Frontiers in Pediatric Cardiac Imaging)
Abstract
:Background: To assess the impact of different clinical questions on radiation doses acquired during cardiac computed tomography in children. Methods: A total of 116 children who underwent cardiac CT on a third-generation dual-source CT scanner were included. The clinical questions were divided into three main categories: the extent of scanning in the z-axis, coronary artery assessment and cardiac function assessment. Radiation dose values represented as a dose-length product (DLP) in mGy*cm were recorded from the CT scanner protocols. Results: There were significantly higher doses in cases with cardiac function assessment (median DLP 348 versus 59 mGy*cm, p < 0.01) and in cases with coronary artery assessment (median DLP 133 versus 71 mGy*cm, p < 0.01). Conclusion: The most important factor was the assessment of cardiac function, where the median radiation dose was 4.3× higher in patients with a request for cardiac function assessment. We strongly recommend that clinical requests for cardiac CT should be carefully considered in the paediatric population.
1. Introduction
ECG-synchronized cardiac CT due to high spatial and temporal resolution is ideal for non-invasive assessment of the heart. Due to technological advances and radiation dose reduction protocols, the overall radiation dose has decreased in recent years [1]. However, radiation burden from this examination is not negligible, especially in children due to higher radiosensitivity [2,3].
There are several factors that affect radiation dose from a CT examination, including the type of scanning mode (retrospective or prospective ECG synchronisation), lowering of the electrical voltage of the X-ray tube and also the craniocaudal range of scanning [1,4,5,6]. Nevertheless, selecting the appropriate scanning protocol to minimize radiation dose is not only the decision of the radiologist or CT technician, but also depends, in many cases, on the clinical question. Ultimately, lowering the radiation dose itself should not outweigh the clinical benefit of the examination. Clinical questions for paediatric cardiac CT vary and may encompass anatomical evaluation of the entire chest, coronary artery evaluation and the assessment of cardiac function with measurement of the volumes and ejection fractions of the left and right ventricle, and eventually combinations of some or all of these tasks.
There are multiple studies dealing with cardiac CT and radiation dose [7,8,9,10,11,12,13]. However, these studies address the issues of radiation dose and technical and diagnostic quality, but none of them compare radiation dose with clinical questions. This study analyses the influence of different clinical questions on the radiation dose of paediatric cardiac CT.
2. Materials and Methods
This is a retrospective, single-centre study performed at the University Hospital Motol in Prague. We included all children and adolescents below the age of 19.
In total, 116 children (41 females, 75 males) were examined (Table 1). The main diagnosis was congenital heart disease (74%). Other diagnoses were less common: coronary anomaly (6%), ischemic heart disease (5%), connective tissue disease (5%), infection including infective endocarditis (4%), vasculitis (3%), two cases with arrhythmia and one case each for trauma, thrombosis and tumour. Grouping of patients according to intervals based on body weight according to the European Guidelines on Diagnostic Reference Levels for Paediatric Imaging was omitted in this article [14]. The main reasons for this simplification were a relatively small number of examinations and an effort to keep the article clear and concise.
A third-generation dual-source CT scanner (Somatom Force, Siemens Healthineers, Forchheim, Germany) was used for all examinations. Periodical quality control tests were performed on a regular basis in the range recommended by the vendor, approved by the local clinical medical physicist and recommended by laws and regulations in the Czech Republic, including a long-term stability test and a daily operational stability test. The scanning modes used were: prospective ECG-triggered high-pitch helical scanning (61×), retrospective ECG-gated helical scanning with current modulation (49×), retrospective ECG-gated helical scanning without current modulation (4×), and prospective ECG-triggered axial scanning (2×). Selection of the scanning mode was based on the clinical question and on the supervising physician’s decision. The voltage was set as low as recommended for the given weight (70–90 kV); however, in selected cases of known implanted metallic stents or pulmonary Melody valves, the voltage was set higher, at 100–150 kV. The current was adjusted by CT scanner software using topogram-based automatic tube current selection (CareDose4D, Siemens Healthineers).
2.1. Clinical Questions
The principal diagnosis of every patient was noted. However, more important than the principal diagnosis itself are the clinical questions influencing the selection of the CT protocol and scanning mode. There are many different clinical questions, and, in many cases, there was more than one question. However, in view of CT protocol selection, they could be simplified to three main categories of clinical questions:
- Extent of scanning in the z-axis (heart only): Yes or no. This differentiates between examinations that cover only the heart (from the tracheal carina to the caudal edge of the heart) and examinations that include the aortic arch or the entire chest. A longer extent of scanning leads to a higher radiation dose.
- Coronary artery evaluation: Yes or no. This differentiates between examinations where one of the questions is about anatomy, stenosis or compression of the coronary arteries versus examinations without the need for precise evaluation of the coronary arteries. The relevant assessment of the coronary arteries depends on the quality of the images, especially the absence of motion artefacts. Prospective single-shot high-pitch mode requires a lower heart rate (below <60 bpm), which is sometimes impossible in children. Therefore, we assume that retrospective gating mode is more often selected for coronary CT angiography, and this could lead to a higher radiation dose.
- Cardiac function assessment: Yes or no. This differentiates between examinations in which one of the clinical questions is about the measurement of cardiac ventricles and the calculation of the ejection fraction of the right and/or left ventricles. Assessment of function requires scanning through the whole heart cycle using retrospective gating mode, which therefore leads to a higher radiation dose than in examinations at a particular cardiac cycle phase only.
2.2. Radiation Dose
Radiation dose values were recorded from the CT scanner protocol stored in the hospital picture archiving and communication system (PACS). As recommended by the European Guidelines on Diagnostic Reference Levels for Paediatric Imaging, a standard cylindrical CT phantom with a diameter of 32 cm was used for calibration [14]. The dose-length product (DLP) in mGy*cm was used for the representation of a radiation dose because DLP is a good representation of the total amount of ionising radiation applied during the examination. Size-Specific Dose Estimate (SSDE) values are not available in the patient dose protocol of the used CT scanner [15].
Other quantities are used to express the radiation dose in medical imaging with ionising radiation including the effective dose [15,16,17]. Furthermore, there are different conversion factors for the calculation of the effective dose from the DLP for different age groups, and moreover, these factors differ among different studies and recommendations [3,13,18,19,20]. Therefore, because of the age and weight heterogeneity of our group of patients, we did not calculate the effective dose from the DLP.
2.3. Statistical Analysis
Statistical analysis was performed with MedCalc Statistical Software version 19.4.0 (MedCalc Software Ltd., Ostend, Belgium; https://www.medcalc.org, accessed on 22 December 2020). Mann–Whitney test for independent samples was used for DLP and Student’s t-test was used for other variables.
3. Results
The total DLP presented as a median (minimum, maximum) was 101 (6, 1751) mGy*cm.
3.1. Extent of Scanning in the Z-Axis
3.2. Coronary Artery Evaluation
The clinical question dealing with the evaluation of the coronary arteries had a statistically significant influence on the resulting radiation dose. The DLP of coronary artery examination was significantly higher (1.87×) compared to examinations without it (median DLP 133 versus 71 mGy*cm) (Table 3 and Figure 2).
3.3. Cardiac Function Assessment
The clinical question about cardiac function assessment has a statistically significant influence on the resulting radiation dose (median DLP 348 versus 59 mGy*cm); however, there was also a significant difference between age, height, weight, BSA and BMI within the group of patients with and without cardiac function assessment (Table 4).
There was no significant difference in the evaluated parameters, except for radiation dose (median DLP 84 versus 358 mGy*cm), after the elimination of selection bias using an age limit above 8.1 y.o. The question on cardiac function assessment increases the radiation dose of cardiac CT examination by 4.3× (Table 5 and Figure 3).
4. Discussion
The clinical question about coronary arteries and cardiac function assessment caused a statistically significant increase in the radiation dose acquired from cardiac CT in paediatric patients. The most important factor was cardiac function assessment, where the median radiation dose was 4.3× higher in patients with cardiac function assessment requests than without. In the case of coronary artery assessment, there was 1.87× higher median radiation dose than without.
To the best of our knowledge, there is no similar study that compares radiation dose with the clinical question. However, an explanation of our results can be derived from previous studies. For example, Podberesky et al. compared retrospective and prospective ECG-gated cardiac CT scanning using anthropomorphic phantoms and found that scanning in the retrospective mode increases the radiation dose by 3.8× [7]. Cardiac function assessment requires retrospective mode in all cases, but coronary artery or entire chest examination can be performed in both modes.
Comparison of the total DLP, scanners and scanning protocols with other studies is summarized in Table 6. The total DLP is similar to studies where they used a combination of retrospective and prospective scanning modes. Only Mainel et al. mentioned selection of retrospective ECG-gated scanning based on myocardial function assessment and showed a similar range of total DLP. Several studies with a third-generation dual-source CT scanner (128-slice DCST) showed that the prospective high-pitch scanning protocol provides scans with very low radiation doses, with sufficient examination quality for evaluation of the heart and vessels in congenital heart disease [8,11,12,15,17]. However, this mode can be used in cases where cardiac function assessment was not necessary. Alternatively, a step and shoot prospective ECG synchronized protocol could be used in the case of CT machines without a high-pitch mode. This mode also provides low radiation doses with sufficient image quality [13].
Study Limitations
Due to a limited number of examinations and in an effort to keep the structure of presented data clear and concise, we did not divide the patients into groups as per the European Guidelines on Diagnostic Reference Levels for Paediatric Imaging. This limitation is obvious in the case of cardiac function evaluation, where there was cardiac CT examination selection bias due to easier evaluation of cardiac function by echocardiography in younger and smaller children. To eliminate this selection bias, we had to state an age limit in order to compare similar groups. This limit was derived from the mean minus SD of the group of patients with cardiac function assessment (13.3–5.2) who were 8.1 years or older. After this elimination of selection bias, there was no significant difference in the evaluated parameters except radiation dose, as mentioned above (Table 5 and Figure 3).
5. Conclusions
The factor increasing radiation the most was the cardiac assessment, where the median radiation dose was 4.3× higher in patients with cardiac function assessment than without. Based on these results, we strongly recommend that clinical requests for cardiac CT should be carefully considered. Radiation-free methods, such as echocardiography and magnetic resonance imaging, should be used for cardiac function assessment whenever possible.
Author Contributions
All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Examinations were performed by T.A., M.K., V.S., Z.Š., M.P. and L.M. Data collection and the first draft of the manuscript was written by T.A. All authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. Conceptualization: T.A., M.K. and V.S.; methodology, T.A.; software, T.A.; validation, T.A., M.K., V.S., Z.Š., M.P. and L.M.; formal analysis, T.A.; investigation, T.A.; resources, T.A.; data curation, T.A., M.K. and V.S.; writing—original draft preparation, T.A.; writing—review and editing, T.A., M.K., V.S., Z.Š., J.J. and M.R.; visualization, T.A.; supervision, M.R.; project administration, T.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement
This retrospective study was conducted in accordance with the ethical standards of University Hospital Motol, and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments.
Informed Consent Statement
Standard institutional informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
Data Availability Statement
Data will be made available by the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
- Stocker, T.J.; Deseive, S.; Leipsic, J.; Hadamitzky, M.; Chen, M.Y.; Rubinshtein, R.; Heckner, M.; Bax, J.J.; Fang, X.-M.; Grove, E.L.; et al. Reduction in Radiation Exposure in Cardiovascular Computed Tomography Imaging: Results from the PROspective Multicenter Registry on RadiaTion Dose Estimates of Cardiac CT AngIOgraphy iN Daily Practice in 2017 (PROTECTION VI). Eur. Heart J. 2018, 39, 3715–3723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hosseini Nasab, S.M.B.; Deevband, M.R.; Shabestani-Monfared, A.; Hoseini Amoli, S.A.; Fatehi Feyzabad, S.H. Organ Equivalent Dose and Lifetime Attributable Risk of Cancer Incidence and Mortality Associated with Cardiac Ct Angiography. Radiat. Prot. Dosim. 2020, 189, 213–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Williams, M.C.; Stewart, C.; Weir, N.W.; Newby, D.E. Using Radiation Safely in Cardiology: What Imagers Need to Know. Heart 2019, 105, 798–806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Alkadhi, H.; Leschka, S. Radiation Dose of Cardiac Computed Tomography—What Has Been Achieved and What Needs to Be Done. Eur. Radiol. 2011, 21, 505–509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Halliburton, S.S.; Abbara, S.; Chen, M.Y.; Gentry, R.; Mahesh, M.; Raff, G.L.; Shaw, L.J.; Hausleiter, J. SCCT Guidelines on Radiation Dose and Dose-Optimization Strategies in Cardiovascular CT. J. Cardiovasc. Comput. Tomogr. 2011, 5, 198–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Gimelli, A.; Achenbach, S.; Buechel, R.R.; Edvardsen, T.; Francone, M.; Gaemperli, O.; Hacker, M.; Hyafil, F.; Kaufmann, P.A.; Lancellotti, P.; et al. Strategies for Radiation Dose Reduction in Nuclear Cardiology and Cardiac Computed Tomography Imaging: A Report from the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging (EACVI), the Cardiovascular Committee of European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM), and the European Society of Cardiovascular Radiology (ESCR). Eur. Heart J. 2018, 39, 286–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Podberesky, D.J.; Angel, E.; Yoshizumi, T.T.; Toncheva, G.; Salisbury, S.R.; Alsip, C.; Barelli, A.; Egelhoff, J.C.; Anderson-Evans, C.; Nguyen, G.B.; et al. Radiation Dose Estimation for Prospective and Retrospective ECG-Gated Cardiac CT Angiography in Infants and Small Children Using a 320-MDCT Volume Scanner. Am. J. Roentgenol. 2012, 199, 1129–1135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ghoshhajra, B.B.; Lee, A.M.; Engel, L.-C.; Celeng, C.; Kalra, M.K.; Brady, T.J.; Hoffmann, U.; Westra, S.J.; Abbara, S. Radiation Dose Reduction in Pediatric Cardiac Computed Tomography: Experience from a Tertiary Medical Center. Pediatric Cardiol. 2014, 35, 171–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Meinel, F.G.; Henzler, T.; Schoepf, U.J.; Park, P.W.; Huda, W.; Spearman, J.V.; Dyer, K.T.; Rao, A.G.; Hlavacek, A.M. ECG-Synchronized CT Angiography in 324 Consecutive Pediatric Patients: Spectrum of Indications and Trends in Radiation Dose. Pediatric Cardiol. 2015, 36, 569–578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Liu, Y.; Li, J.; Zhao, H.; Jia, Y.; Ren, J.; Xu, J.; Hao, Y.; Zheng, M. Image Quality and Radiation Dose of Dual-Source CT Cardiac Angiography Using Prospective ECG-Triggering Technique in Pediatric Patients with Congenital Heart Disease. J. Cardiothorac. Surg. 2016, 11, 47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Koplay, M.; Kizilca, O.; Cimen, D.; Sivri, M.; Erdogan, H.; Guvenc, O.; Oc, M.; Oran, B. Prospective ECG-Gated High-Pitch Dual-Source Cardiac CT Angiography in the Diagnosis of Congenital Cardiovascular Abnormalities: Radiation Dose and Diagnostic Efficacy in a Pediatric Population. Diagn. Interv. Imaging 2016, 97, 1141–1150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Barrera, C.A.; Otero, H.J.; White, A.M.; Saul, D.; Biko, D.M. Image Quality and Radiation Dose of ECG-Triggered High-Pitch Dual-Source Cardiac Computed Tomography Angiography in Children for the Evaluation of Central Vascular Stents. Int. J. Cardiovasc. Imaging 2019, 35, 367–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hou, Q.-R.; Gao, W.; Sun, A.; Wang, Q.; Qiu, H.; Wang, F.; Hu, L.; Li, J.; Zhong, Y. A Prospective Evaluation of Contrast and Radiation Dose and Image Quality in Cardiac CT in Children with Complex Congenital Heart Disease Using Low-Concentration Iodinated Contrast Agent and Low Tube Voltage and Current. Br. J. Radiol. 2017, 90, 20160669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- European Commission. Radiation Protection. In European Guidelines on Diagnostic Reference Levels for Paediatric Imaging; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2018; p. 185. [Google Scholar]
- Vañó, E.; Miller, D.L.; Martin, C.J.; Rehani, M.M.; Kang, K.; Rosenstein, M.; Ortiz-López, P.; Mattsson, S.; Padovani, R.; Rogers, A.; et al. ICRP Publication 135: Diagnostic Reference Levels in Medical Imaging. Ann. ICRP 2017, 46, 1–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP Publication 103. Ann. ICRP 2007, 37, 1–332. [CrossRef]
- Patient Dosimetry for x Rays Used in Medical Imaging. J. ICRU 2005, 5, 1–113. [CrossRef]
- Trattner, S.; Chelliah, A.; Prinsen, P.; Ruzal-Shapiro, C.B.; Xu, Y.; Jambawalikar, S.; Amurao, M.; Einstein, A.J. Estimating Effective Dose of Radiation From Pediatric Cardiac CT Angiography Using a 64-MDCT Scanner: New Conversion Factors Relating Dose-Length Product to Effective Dose. Am. J. Roentgenol. 2017, 208, 585–594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rompel, O.; Glöckler, M.; Janka, R.; Dittrich, S.; Cesnjevar, R.; Lell, M.M.; Uder, M.; Hammon, M. Third-Generation Dual-Source 70-KVp Chest CT Angiography with Advanced Iterative Reconstruction in Young Children: Image Quality and Radiation Dose Reduction. Pediatric Radiol. 2016, 46, 462–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Habib Geryes, B.; Calmon, R.; Khraiche, D.; Boddaert, N.; Bonnet, D.; Raimondi, F. Radiation Dose Reduction in Paediatric Coronary Computed Tomography: Assessment of Effective Dose and Image Quality. Eur. Radiol. 2016, 26, 2030–2038. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Figure 1.
Comparison of the radiation dose for the extent of scanning in the z-axis. DLP—dose length product (mGy*cm).
Figure 1.
Comparison of the radiation dose for the extent of scanning in the z-axis. DLP—dose length product (mGy*cm).
Figure 2.
Comparison of the radiation dose for the coronary artery evaluation. DLP—dose length product (mGy*cm).
Figure 2.
Comparison of the radiation dose for the coronary artery evaluation. DLP—dose length product (mGy*cm).
Figure 3.
Comparison of the radiation dose for the cardiac function assessment, limited to patients aged > 8.1 y.o. to exclude selection bias due to patient age. DLP—dose-length product (mGy*cm).
Figure 3.
Comparison of the radiation dose for the cardiac function assessment, limited to patients aged > 8.1 y.o. to exclude selection bias due to patient age. DLP—dose-length product (mGy*cm).
Table 1.
Patients’ characteristics (116 examinations).
| Characteristic | Mean ± SD (Min–Max) |
|---|---|
| Age | 10.6 ± 5.9 years (50 days–18.9 years) |
| Height | 138.2 ± 38.0 cm (54–200) |
| Weight | 40.1 ± 24.8 kg (3.7–103) |
| BSA | 1.22 ± 0.55 (0.24–2.30) |
| BMI | 18.3 ± 4.3 (11.4–33.3) |
Table 2.
Influence of the extent of scanning in the z-axis on the radiation dose of cardiac CT scan in children.
Table 2.
Influence of the extent of scanning in the z-axis on the radiation dose of cardiac CT scan in children.
| Parameter | Heart Only: No (n = 89) | Heart Only: Yes (n = 27) | Comparison | p Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age [years] | 10.3 ± 5.9 | 11.5 ± 5.7 | 1.2 CI (−1.3 to 3.8) | 0.3322 |
| Height [cm] | 136.1 ± 38.9 | 145.1 ± 34.4 | 9.0 CI (−6.6 to 24.7) | 0.2520 |
| Weight [kg] | 39.2 ± 25.5 | 43.3 ± 22.9 | 4.1 CI (−6.3 to 14.5) | 0.4272 |
| BSA [m2] | 1.19 ± 0.56 | 1.30 ± 0.51 | 0.11 CI (−0.12 to 0.34) | 0.3257 |
| BMI [kg/m2] | 18.2 ± 4.6 | 18.6 ± 3.1 | 0.4 CI (−1.1 to 1.9) | 0.6131 |
| DLP [mGy*cm] | 84 (6, 1133) | 129 (11, 584) | 1.54× | 0.3957 |
The DLP value is presented as a median (minimum, maximum), and the comparison value is presented as a ratio. The other variables are presented as mean and standard deviation with comparison as a difference, with a 95% confidence interval. For p values, the Mann–Whitney test for independent samples is used for DLP and the Student t-test is used for the other variables. BSA—body surface area; BMI—body mass index; DLP—dose-length product; CI—confidence interval.
Table 3.
Influence of coronary artery evaluation on the radiation dose of cardiac CT scan in children.
Table 3.
Influence of coronary artery evaluation on the radiation dose of cardiac CT scan in children.
| Parameter | Coronary Arteries: No (n = 56) | Coronary Arteries: Yes (n = 60) | Comparison | p Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age [years] | 10.1 ± 6.6 | 11.0 ± 5.1 | 0.9 (−1.3 to 3.1) | 0.4010 |
| Height [cm] | 131.8 ± 42.7 | 144.2 ± 32.2 | 12.3 (−1.7 to 26.3) | 0.0833 |
| Weight [kg] | 37.7 ± 26.5 | 42.4 ± 23.2 | 4.8 (−4.4 to 13.9) | 0.3069 |
| BSA [m2] | 1.15 ± 0.60 | 1.28 ± 0.49 | 0.14 (−0.07 to 0.34) | 0.1873 |
| BMI [kg/m2] | 18.0 ± 4.1 | 18.5 ± 4.5 | 0.6 (−1.0 to 2.2) | 0.4731 |
| DLP [mGy*cm] | 71 (6, 831) | 133 (11, 1133) | 1.87× | 0.0072 |
The DLP value is presented as a median (minimum, maximum), and the comparison value is presented as a ratio. The other variables are presented as mean and standard deviation with comparison as a difference, with a 95% confidence interval. For p values, the Mann–Whitney test for independent samples is used for DLP and the Student t-test is used for the other variables. BSA—body surface area; BMI—body mass index; DLP—dose-length product; CI—confidence interval.
Table 4.
Influence of cardiac function assessment on radiation dose of cardiac CT scan in children. All patients.
Table 4.
Influence of cardiac function assessment on radiation dose of cardiac CT scan in children. All patients.
| Parameter | Function: No (n = 85) | Function: Yes (n = 31) | Comparison | p Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age [years] | 9.5 ± 5.8 | 13.3 ± 5.2 | 3.8 (1.5 to 6.1) | 0.0013 |
| Height [cm] | 132.4 ± 39.5 | 154.0 ± 28.3 | 21.6 (8.31 to 34.8) | 0.0018 |
| Weight [kg] | 36.0 ± 24.0 | 51.5 ± 23.8 | 15.6 (5.5 to 25.6) | 0.0030 |
| BSA [m2] | 1.13 ± 0.55 | 1.46 ± 0.47 | 0.34 (0.13 to 0.55) | 0.0017 |
| BMI [kg/m2] | 17.6 ± 3.9 | 20.2 ± 4.9 | 2.7 (0.7 to 4.6) | 0.0089 |
| DLP [mGy*cm] | 59 (6, 796) | 348 (65, 1133) | 5.9× | <0.0001 |
The DLP value is presented as a median (minimum, maximum), and the comparison value is presented as a ratio. The other variables are presented as mean and standard deviation with comparison as a difference, with a 95% confidence interval. For p values, the Mann–Whitney test for independent samples is used for DLP and the Student t-test is used for the other variables. BSA—body surface area; BMI—body mass index; DLP—dose length product; CI—confidence interval.
Table 5.
Influence of cardiac function assessment on radiation dose of cardiac CT scan in children. Selection limited to patients aged > 8.1 y.o. for exclusion of bias.
Table 5.
Influence of cardiac function assessment on radiation dose of cardiac CT scan in children. Selection limited to patients aged > 8.1 y.o. for exclusion of bias.
| Parameter | Function: No (n = 48) | Function: Yes (n = 27) | Comparison | p Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age [years] | 13.8 ± 3.4 | 14.9 ± 3.6 | 1.0 (−0.6 to 2.6) | 0.2177 |
| Height [cm] | 160.4 ± 21.7 | 162.9 ± 16.0 | 2.4 (−7.0 to 11.9) | 0.6070 |
| Weight [kg] | 51.5 ± 19.3 | 57.1 ± 20.1 | 5.6 (−3.6 to 14.8) | 0.2313 |
| BSA [m2] | 1.50 ± 0.38 | 1.59 ± 0.35 | 0.09 (−0.08 to 0.27) | 0.3065 |
| BMI [kg/m2] | 19.2 ± 3.8 | 20.9 ± 4.9 | 1.5 (−0.8 to 3.7) | 0.1695 |
| DLP [mGy*cm] | 84 (11, 796) | 358 (83, 1133) | 4.3× | <0.0001 |
The DLP value is presented as a median (minimum, maximum), and the comparison value is presented as a ratio. The other variables are presented as mean and standard deviation with comparison as a difference, with a 95% confidence interval. For p values, the Mann–Whitney test for independent samples is used for DLP and the Student t-test is used for the other variables. BSA—body surface area; BMI—body mass index; DLP—dose-length product; CI—confidence interval.
Table 6.
Comparison of total DLP, scanners and scanning protocols with other studies.
| Study | Total DLP (mGy*cm) | Scanner | Scanning Mode |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adla (this study) | 101 (6, 1751) | 128-slice DSCT | Prospective ECG-triggered high-pitch helical, retrospective ECG-gated helical with current modulation, retrospective ECG-gated helical without current modulation or prospective ECG-triggered axial. Selection of the scanning mode based on clinical question and supervising physician’s decision. |
| Barrera 2019 [12] | 98.29 ± 66.02 (17.6, 204.9) ** | 128-slice DSCT | Prospective ECG-triggered high-pitch helical |
| Hou 2017 [13] | 15.29 ± 1.91 * (Lower dose) 20.11 ± 2.13 * (Standard dose) | 64-slice MDCT | Prospective ECG-triggered axial |
| Liu 2016 [10] | 19.71 ± 10.5 * | 64-slice DSCT | Prospective ECG-triggered axial |
| Koplay 2016 [11] | 15.6 ± 9.6 * | 128-slice DSCT | Prospective ECG-triggered high-pitch helical |
| Rompel 2016 [19] | 5.33 ± 3.05 * (128-slice DSCT) 9.17 ± 4.05 * (64-slice DSCT) | 64-slice DSCT 128-slice DSCT | Prospective ECG-triggered high-pitch helical |
| Habib Geryes 2016 [20] | Mean varies from 28.4 to 189.2 (3 different protocols and 4 age groups) | 64-slice MDCT | Retrospective ECG-gated, prospective ECG-triggered |
| Meinel 2015 [9] | 67 (1, 1788) | 64-slice MDCT 64-slice DSCT | Retrospective ECG-gated, prospective ECG-triggered, or an adaptive sequential technique depending on the patients’ heart rate and rhythm and whether or not an evaluation of myocardial function was indicated |
| Ghoshhajra 2014 [8] | 107.0 (44.5, 282.3) | 64-slice MDCT 64-slice DSCT 128-slice DSCT | Retrospective ECG-gated helical, prospective ECG-triggered axial, or prospective ECG-triggered high-pitch helical. ECG-gating was selected per the scanner’s availability, scan indication and per the supervising physician’s discretion. |
The DLP is presented as a median (minimum, maximum), * mean ± standard deviation, or ** mean ± standard deviation (minimum–maximum). ECG—electrocardiogram, MDCT—multi-slice CT, DSCT—dual-source CT.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
MDPI and ACS Style
Adla, T.; Kočí, M.; Suchánek, V.; Šalagovičová, Z.; Polovinčák, M.; Mikšík, L.; Janoušek, J.; Roček, M. Clinical Question Influence on Radiation Dose of Cardiac CT Scan in Children. Children 2022, 9, 1172. https://doi.org/10.3390/children9081172
AMA Style
Adla T, Kočí M, Suchánek V, Šalagovičová Z, Polovinčák M, Mikšík L, Janoušek J, Roček M. Clinical Question Influence on Radiation Dose of Cardiac CT Scan in Children. Children. 2022; 9(8):1172. https://doi.org/10.3390/children9081172
Chicago/Turabian StyleAdla, Theodor, Martin Kočí, Vojtěch Suchánek, Zuzana Šalagovičová, Michal Polovinčák, Lukáš Mikšík, Jan Janoušek, and Miloslav Roček. 2022. "Clinical Question Influence on Radiation Dose of Cardiac CT Scan in Children" Children 9, no. 8: 1172. https://doi.org/10.3390/children9081172
APA StyleAdla, T., Kočí, M., Suchánek, V., Šalagovičová, Z., Polovinčák, M., Mikšík, L., Janoušek, J., & Roček, M. (2022). Clinical Question Influence on Radiation Dose of Cardiac CT Scan in Children. Children, 9(8), 1172. https://doi.org/10.3390/children9081172
Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.
