Estimation of Effective Dose in Monte Carlo Simulation Method for CT Coronary Angiography Patients
Life Sciences-Radiology
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.22376/ijlpr.2023.13.2.L194-L201Keywords:
Radiation, Computed Tomography, Effective Dose, Angiography, Monte Carlo SimulationAbstract
Computed tomography (CT) scans of Coronary Angiography have significantly aided in the diagnosis of disorders of the coronary artery. In contrast to other radiological examinations, the patient's radiation exposure is notably higher. This study aimed to optimize the radiation dose and estimate the adequate amount in computed tomography (CT) for coronary angiography. A total of 380 patients were referred to the Primus Diagnostic Centre and Heath City Hospital, Guwahati Assam, during the study with coronary artery disturbances. Data on the technical parameters used in CT procedures were taken in 2022. The aim and study's objective was Organ and surface dose to specific radiosensitive organs (Chest) estimation using software imPACT 1.0.4 from National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) SR250 Monte Carlo dataset. The study population (n = 380) comprised 190 men and 190 women with an average age of 29 to 75 years. The Mean ± SD of BMI and ED are 22.42±1.06 and 21.57±4.27 respectively. The mean DLP is 854.67, and the mean ED is 21.57. The effective doses for males (13- 27) mSv were in females (13-29) mSv. This study was a pioneer in presenting actual amounts of CT examinations in Assam because other countries have already started with more advanced CT procedures, such as dosages for paediatrics, coronary angiography and CT fluoroscopy. With this study, there may be more opportunities to create complex new studies or enhance the data from related studies that may be done in future work. The high precision with minimum risk, the current study can be considered as the need of the hour.
References
Kalender, WA. Computed tomography: fundamentals, system technology, image quality, applications. John Wiley & Sons; 2011.
Hsieh J. Computed tomography: principles, design, artefacts, and recent advances; 2003.
Romans L. Computed Tomography for Technologists: A comprehensive text. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2018.
R. Protection, “ICRP publication 103,” Ann ICRP, vol. 37. 2007;4(2):2.
Clement CH, Eckerman K, Harrison J, Menzel HG. Compendium of dose coefficients based on ICRP Publication 60. Citeseer; 2012.
Jibiri NN, Adewale AA. Estimating radiation dose to the lens of eyes of patients undergoing cranial computed tomography in a teaching Hospital in Osun state, Nigeria. Int J Radiat Res. 2014;12(1):53-60.
Najafi M, Deevband MR, Ahmadi M, Kardan MR. Establishment of Diagnostic reference levels for common multi-detector computed tomography examinations in Iran. Australas Phys Eng Sci Med. 2015;38(4):603-9. doi: 10.1007/s13246-015-0388-8, PMID 26507898.
Chun -Sing W. Bingsheng H, Ho -kwan S, Wai -Ian W, Ka -ling Y, Tfaany CYC. Eur J Radiol. 2012 A questionnaire study assessing knowledge and practice about radiation exposure related to radiological imaging;81:264-8.
ImPACT. ImPACT’s CT dosimetry tool. CTDosimetry version 1.0.4 [cited Jan 16, 2012]. Available from: http://www.impactscan.org/ctdosimetry.htm.
Shrimpton PC, Jones DG. Normalized organ doses for x-ray computed tomography calculated using Monte Carlo techniques and a mathematical anthropomorphic phantom. Radiat Prot Dosim. 1993;49(1-3):241-3. doi: 10.1093/rpd/49.1-3.241.
Mollet NR, Cademartiri F, van Mieghem CA, Runza G, McFadden EP, Baks T et al. High-resolution spiral computed coronary tomography angiography in patients referred for diagnostic conventional coronary angiography. Circulation. 2005;112(15):2318-23. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.105.533471, PMID 16203914.
Hausleiter J, Meyer T, Hadamitzky M, Huber E, Zankl M, Martinoff S et al. Radiation dose estimates from cardiac multi-slice computed tomography in daily practice: impact of different scanning protocols on effective dose estimates. Circulation. 2006;113(10):1305-10. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.105.602490, PMID 16520411.
Stolzmann P, Scheffel H, Schertler T, Frauenfelder T, Leschka S, Husmann L et al. Radiation dose estimates in dual-source computed tomography coronary angiography. Eur Radiol. 2008;18(3):592-9. doi: 10.1007/s00330-007-0786-8, PMID 17909816.
Sarma AD, Sharma J, Singha MK. A review on diagnostic reference levels for adult patients undergoing chest (coronary angiography) computed tomography scan in North-East India. Asian Pac J Health Sci. 2022;9(3):55-8. doi: 10.21276/apjhs.2022.9.3.12.
Bárdyová Z, Horváthová M, Nikodemová D. Estimation of diagnostic reference levels for CT colonography in Slovakia. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2018;181(4):310-6. doi: 10.1093/rpd/ncy029, PMID 29462483.
Hamilton-Craig CR, Tandon K, Kwan B, DeBoni K, Burley C, Wesley AJ, et al. Coronary ct radiation dose reduction strategies at an Australian tertiary care centre - improvements in radiation exposure through an evidence-based approach. J Med Radiat Sci. 2020;67(1):25-33. doi: 10.1002/jmrs.358, PMID 31693313.
Castellano IA, Nicol ED, Bull RK, Roobottom CA, Williams MC, Harden SP. A prospective national survey of coronary ct angiography radiation doses in the united kingdom. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2017;11(4):268-73. doi: 10.1016/j.jcct.2017.05.002, PMID 28532693.
Mandi A, Hammond S, Dlama J, Peter E, Itopa R, Goriya K. Diagnostic reference levels for brain computed tomography scans: A case study of a tertiary health care centre in Nigeria. IOSR JDMS. 2015;14(VII):66-75.
European 2014 council Directive 2013/59/EURATOM.
Okeji MC, Ibrahim NS, Geoffrey L, Abubarkar F, Ahmed A. Evaluation of absorbed dose and protocols during Brain Computed Tomography Scans in a Nigerian Tertiary Hospital. WJWS. 2016;13(4):251-4.
Roch P, Célier D, Dessaud C, Etard C. Using diagnostic reference levels to evaluate the noologies in radiography and computed tomography. Eur J Radiol. 2018;98:68-74. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2017.11.002, PMID 29279172.
Shrimpton PC, Hillier MC, Golding SJ. Doses from computed tomography (CT) examinations in the UK −2011 review. Public Health England. 2011; OX11 0RQ.improvement of patient dose optimization and the influence of recent tech.
Smith -Bindman R. Moghadassi M, nelson TR. Radiat Doses Conserv CT Exam. Radiology. 2015;277(1):134-41.
Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA). Commonwealth of Australia; 2019. Available from: https://ndrld.arpansa.gov.au/.
Roch P, Célier D, Dessaud C, Etard C. Using diagnostic reference levels to evaluate the improvement of patient dose optimization and the influence of recent technologies in radiography and computed tomography. Eur J Radiol. 2018;98:68-74. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2017.11.002, PMID 29279172.
Clarke J, Cranley K, Robinson PH, Smith S, Workman A. Application of draft European Commission reference levels to CT dose survey. Br J Radiol. 2000;73(865):43-50.
Osei EK, Darko JA. A Survey of Organ equivalent and effective doses from diagnostic radiology Procedures. Hyundai Publishing Corporation. SRN radiology. ISRN Radiol. 2013;2013:Article ID 204346, 9 pages. doi: 10.5402/2013/204346, PMID 24977137.
Aldrich JE, Bilawich AM, Mayo JR. Radiation doses to patients receiving computed tomography examinations in British Colombia. Can Assoc Radiol J. 2006;57(2):79-85. PMID 16944681.
Brix G, Nagel HD, Stamm G, Veit R, Lechel U, Griebel J et al. Radiation exposure in multi–slice versus single-slice spiral CT: results of a nationwide survey. Eur Radiol. 2003;13(8):1979-91. doi: 10.1007/s00330-003-1883-y, PMID 12687286.
Mpumelelo N. Estimation of effective dose using the dose length product.
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
Copyright (c) 2023 Arnabjyoti Deva Sarma, Dr.Mrinal Kanti Singha, Jibon Sharma, Dr. Manash Pratim Kashyap
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
