Radiation Exposure Assessment in Coronary Angiography Computed Tomography Scan: Establishing Diagnostic Reference Level for Northeast Assam Population

  • Arnabjyoti Deva Sarma Assam Down Town University
  • Jibon Sharma Gauhati Medical College and Hospital
  • Manash Pratim Sarma Assam down town University
  • Mrinal Kanti Singha Assam down town University
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5937/scriptamed55-46000
Keywords: Radiology, Computed Tomography, Coronary Angiography, Phantom, Heart

Abstract


Background/Aim: Coronary angiography computed tomography (CT) scans play a pivotal role in diagnosing cardiovascular diseases, providing crucial information for treatment planning. However, concerns regarding radiation exposure have prompted the need for establishing region-specific diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) to ensure patient safety. This study aimed to assess radiation exposure during coronary angiography CT scans in the northeast Assam population and establish DRLs tailored to this demographic.

Methods: A total of 380 patients were referred to the Primus Diagnostic Centre and Heath City Hospital, Guwahati Assam with coronary artery disturbances. Data on the technical parameters used in CT procedures were taken in 2021-2022. Organ and surface dose to specific radiosensitive organs (chest) estimation was done using software imPACT 1.0.4 from the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) SR250 Monte Carlo dataset.

Results: The study population (n = 380) comprised 190 men and 190 women with an age range from 29 to 75 years. The mean body mass index (BMI) and effective dose (ED) were 22.42 ± 1.06 kg/m2 and 21.57 ± 4.27 mSv.cm, respectively. The mean the dose-length product (DLP) was 854.67 mSv.cm and the mean ED was 21.57 mSv.cm. The ED for males was 13- 27 mSv and 13-29 mSv for females. The DRL for the male population was found to be 24.26 mSv.cm2 whereas for the female population was 24.69 mSv.cm2.

Conclusion: This study highlights the necessity of establishing tailored DRLs for coronary angiography CT scans in the northeast Assam population. By doing so, healthcare providers can ensure optimal image quality while minimising radiation exposure, ultimately enhancing patient safety and quality of care. These findings have implications for radiological practice in the region and contribute to the ongoing efforts to standardise radiation doses in medical imaging procedures.

References

Kalender WA. Dose in X-ray computed tomography. Phys Med Biol. 2014 Feb 7;59(3):R129-50. doi: 10.1088/0031-9155/59/3/R129.

Hsieh, J. Computed tomography: principles, design, artifacts, and recent advances. Bellingham, WA: SPIE; 2003.

Fernandes ED, Kadivar H, Hallman GL, Reul GJ, Ott DA, Cooley DA. Congenital malformations of the coronary arteries: the Texas Heart Institute experience. Ann Thorac Surg. 1992 Oct;54(4):732-40. doi: 10.1016/0003-4975(92)91019-6.

Petersen JW, Pepine CJ. Microvascular coronary dysfunction and ischemic heart disease: where are we in 2014? Trends Cardiovasc Med. 2015 Feb;25(2):98-103. doi: 10.1016/j.tcm.2014.09.013.

Douglas PS, Hoffmann U, Patel MR, Mark DB, Al-Khalidi HR, Cavanaugh B, et al; PROMISE Investigators. Outcomes of anatomical versus functional testing for coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med. 2015 Apr 2;372(14):1291-300. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1415516.

Hou ZH, Lu B, Gao Y, Jiang SL, Wang Y, Li W, et al. Prognostic value of coronary CT angiography and calcium score for major adverse cardiac events in outpatients. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2012 Oct;5(10):990-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jcmg.2012.06.006.

Hart D, Wall BF. Radiation exposure of the UK population from medical and dental X-ray examinations. Chilton, UK: NRPB; 2002. doi: 10.1016/s0720-048x(03)00178-5.

Gerber TC, Carr JJ, Arai AE, Dixon RL, Ferrari VA, Gomes AS, et al. Ionizing radiation in cardiac imaging: a science advisory from the American Heart Association Committee on Cardiac Imaging of the Council on Clinical Cardiology and Committee on Cardiovascular Imaging and Intervention of the Council on Cardiovascular Radiology and Intervention. Circulation. 2009 Feb 24;119(7):1056-65. doi: 10.1161/circulationaha.108.191650.

Abdullah, A. Establishing dose reference level for computed tomography (CT) examinations in Malaysia. Gelugor, Malaysia: Universiti Sains Malaysia, 2009.

The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP publication 103. Ann ICRP. 2007;37(2-4):1-332. doi: 10.1016/j.icrp.2007.10.003.

Vassileva J, Rehani M. Diagnostic reference levels. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2015 Jan;204(1):W1-3. doi: 10.2214/AJR.14.12794.

Sarma AD, Singha M.K, Sharma J. Estimation of patients effective dose with respect to BMI using Monte Carlo simulation method for CT coronary angiography patients. NeuroQuantology. 2022;20(22):549-9. doi: 10.48047/nq.2022.20.22.NQ10043.

Hunold P, Vogt FM, Schmermund A, Debatin JF, Kerkhoff G, Budde T, et al. Radiation exposure during cardiac CT: effective doses at multi-detector row CT and electron-beam CT. Radiology. 2003 Jan;226(1):145-52. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2261011365.

Alzen G, Benz-Bohm G. Radiation protection in pediatric radiology. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2011 Jun;108(24):407-14. doi: 10.3238/arztebl.2011.0407.

Smith-Bindman R, Miglioretti DL, Johnson E, Lee C, Feigelson HS, Flynn M, et al. Use of diagnostic imaging studies and associated radiation exposure for patients enrolled in large integrated health care systems, 1996-2010. JAMA. 2012 Jun 13;307(22):2400-9. doi: 10.1001/jama.2012.5960.

Aupongkaroon P, Makarawate P, Chaosuwannakit N. Comparison of radiation dose and its correlates between coronary computed tomography angiography and invasive coronary angiography in Northeastern Thailand. Egypt Heart J. 2022 Jan 25;74(1):6. doi: 10.1186/s43044-022-00241-5.

Kones R. Recent advances in the management of chronic stable angina I: approach to the patient, diagnosis, pathophysiology, risk stratification, and gender disparities. Vasc Health Risk Manag. 2010 Aug 9;6:635-56. doi: 10.2147/vhrm.s7564.

Einstein AJ, Henzlova MJ, Rajagopalan S. Estimating risk of cancer associated with radiation exposure from 64-slice computed tomography coronary angiography. JAMA. 2007 Jul 18;298(3):317-23. doi: 10.1001/jama.298.3.317.

Hausleiter J, Meyer T, Hermann F, Hadamitzky M, Krebs M, Gerber TC, et al. Estimated radiation dose associated with cardiac CT angiography. JAMA. 2009 Feb 4;301(5):500-7. doi: 10.1001/jama.2009.54.

Shah A, Das P, Subkovas E, Buch AN, Rees M, Bellamy C. Radiation dose during coronary angiogram: relation to body mass index. Heart Lung Circ. 2015 Jan;24(1):21-5. doi: 10.1016/j.hlc.2014.05.018.

Wang R, Schoepf UJ, Wu R, Reddy RP, Zhang C, Yu W, et al. Image quality and radiation dose of low dose coronary CT angiography in obese patients: sinogram affirmed iterative reconstruction versus filtered back projection. Eur J Radiol. 2012 Nov;81(11):3141-5. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2012.04.012.

Lin EC. Radiation risk from medical imaging. Mayo Clin Proc. 2010 Dec;85(12):1142-6; quiz 1146. doi: 10.4065/mcp.2010.0260.

McCollough CH, Primak AN, Braun N, Kofler J, Yu L, Christner J. Strategies for reducing radiation dose in CT. Radiol Clin North Am. 2009 Jan;47(1):27-40. doi: 10.1016/j.rcl.2008.10.006.

Gottumukkala RV, Kalra MK, Tabari A, Otrakji A, Gee MS. Advanced CT techniques for decreasing radiation dose, reducing sedation requirements, and optimizing image quality in children. Radiographics. 2019 May-Jun;39(3):709-26. doi: 10.1148/rg.2019180082.

Power SP, Moloney F, Twomey M, James K, O'Connor OJ, Maher MM. Computed tomography and patient risk: Facts, perceptions and uncertainties. World J Radiol. 2016 Dec 28;8(12):902-15. doi: 10.4329/wjr.v8.i12.902.

Hausleiter J, Meyer T. Tips to minimize radiation exposure. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2008 Sep-Oct;2(5):325-7. doi: 10.1016/j.jcct.2008.08.012.

Shah NB, Platt SL. ALARA: is there a cause for alarm? Reducing radiation risks from computed tomography scanning in children. Curr Opin Pediatr. 2008 Jun;20(3):243-7. doi: 10.1097/MOP.0b013e3282ffafd2.

Sarma AD, Singha MK, Sharma J, Kashyap DMP. Estimation of effective dose in Monte Carlo simulation method for CT coronary angiography patients. Int J Life Sci Pharma Res. 2023;13(2):L194–L201. doi: 10.22376/ijlpr.2023.13.2.L194-L201.

Thomas P. National diagnostic reference levels: What they are, why we need them and what's next. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2022 Mar;66(2):208-14. doi: 10.1111/1754-9485.13375.

Wall BF. Diagnostic reference levels--the way forward. Br J Radiol 2001 Sep;74(885):785-8. doi: 10.1259/bjr.74.885.740785.

Sonaglioni A, Rigamonti E, Nicolosi GL, Lombardo M. Appropriate use criteria implementation with modified Haller index for predicting stress echocardiographic results and outcome in a population of patients with suspected coronary artery disease. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2021 Oct;37(10):2917-30. doi: 10.1007/s10554-021-02274-4

Published
2024/04/18
Issue
Vol. 55 No. 2 (2024): Mar-Apr
Section
Original article
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

  1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.

  2. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.

  3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).