- Research
- Open access
- Published:
Radiation dose in cardiac CT for preoperative diagnosis of children with congenital heart disease
Egyptian Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine volume 55, Article number: 192 (2024)
Abstract
Background
One of the most common congenital conditions detected globally, congenital heart diseases, and CT techniques provide a high-quality and thorough presentation of heart anatomy, thoracic vasculature, and extracardiac structures, and hence, it is becoming a more popular non-invasive diagnostic imaging method for congenital heart disease. The drawbacks with CT imaging are the radiation exposure from repeated scans is also rising, especially in young patients. The present study is aimed to evaluate the radiation dose in gated and non-gated cardiac CT for preoperative diagnosis of pediatric patients with congenital heart diseases.
Results
A total of 111 pediatric patients with mean age of 7.47 years were prospectively included in the study. The mean value of “Effective dose (E)” for gated CT at \(100\;{\text{kV}}_{{\text{p}}}\) was found to be \(4.71\;{\text{mSv}}\) which is higher than mean “E” of \(3.95\;{\text{mSv}}\) observed for gated CT at \(80\;{\text{kV}}_{{\text{p}}}\). The average value of “E” for non-gated technique was observed less than that of gated technique at both \(100\;{\text{kV}}_{{\text{p}}}\) and \(80\;{\text{kV}}_{{\text{p}}}\). The multiple regression analysis shows that “E” is significantly dependent on \({\text{DLP}}\left( {{\text{mGy}}\;{\text{cm}}} \right)\) for both gated and non-gated techniques at 95% level of significance \(\left( {p < 0.05} \right)\). The Student’s t-test verifies that the mean value of “E” for both the techniques at \(100\;{\text{kV}}_{{\text{p}}}\) and \(80\;{\text{kV}}_{{\text{p}}}\) are significantly different at 95% level of significance \(\left( {p < 0.05} \right)\).
Conclusions
The effective dose received by pediatric patients is much higher when using ECG-gated acquisition with an average value of \(4.71\;{\text{mSv}}\) and \(3.95\;{\text{mSv}}\) at \(100\;{\text{kV}}_{{\text{p}}}\), and at \(80\;{\text{kV}}_{{\text{p}}}\) respectively. Because low-voltage X-rays are more sensitive to high atomic number iodinated contrast media, the mean “E” for non-gated cardiac CT imaging at \(80\;{\text{kV}}_{{\text{p}}}\) is \(2.26\;{\text{mSv}}\), and results in significant reduction of effective dose.
Background
One of the most common congenital conditions detected globally, congenital heart diseases (CHD) affects 0.8–1.2% of live births [1, 2]. While the incidence of CHD rose in many industrialized nations, the incidence of CHD remained constant worldwide. Countries with higher incidence of CHD were shown to have a relatively high risk of CHD death. Researchers have also discovered a global decline in the death rate from cardiovascular disease, independent of gender, age, or location. The developed world had the sharpest fall in CHD-related deaths. Infant growth and development are severely hampered, and early diagnosis is crucial for both prognosis and therapy. It is associated with severe morbidity and mortality. Children with CHD die at a rate highest during the 1st year of life [3, 4]. The prompt and precise diagnosis is crucial to initiate the appropriate treatment. Thus, non-invasive and repeatable imaging is vital for patients with better prognoses, and longer life spans [5]. For primary pediatric cardiac diagnosis, the most widely utilized imaging modality is echocardiography. The three main modalities used to evaluate CHD are cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), computed tomography (CT), and echocardiography. Echocardiography is widely utilized as screening imaging tool for initial diagnosis and identify the hemodynamic alterations. It can be used for follow up and to monitor the effectiveness of surgical or interventional therapy. But, it has limitations in terms of poor acoustic window, spatial resolution, and lack in precise and thorough detection of complex intracardiac shunts or extracardiac vascular structures [6, 7]. While MRI is ionization radiation-free and provides excellent resolution for soft tissues, it is a time-consuming procedure that requires lengthy anesthesia, making it unsuitable for newborns exhibiting severe clinical complaints and higher cost and lack of widespread availability are its limitations [8]. CT can reveal good anatomical details because of its spatial and temporal resolution. However, given that pediatric patients are more sensitive to radiation, there are worries regarding how radiation may affect them [9]. Furthermore, Iodinated contrast media (CM), which is frequently used to diagnose congenital heart disease (CHD), has a potential risk of acute renal failure [10]. New CT techniques, on the other hand, allow for the highly detailed, high-quality presentation of cardiac anatomy, thoracic vasculature, and extracardiac structures, even in children with very short examination times and low radiation doses. Additionally, neonatal intubation anesthesia is no longer required because the examination can occur during the patient's postprandial sleep phase, avoiding the risks associated with anesthesia. On the other hand, modern CT methods allow for the detailed and high-quality display of images with reduced radiation doses. Nevertheless, modern CT techniques provide optimal appearance of heart structure, with very short examination times, a lower radiation dosage, and neonatal intubation. For this reason, they are becoming a more popular non-invasive diagnostic imaging method for congenital heart disease, even in young patients who are clinically unstable and fragile [11, 12].
The worries about low-dose ionizing radiation exposure from CT scans have grown [13, 14]. Because of the early radiation mishaps and the atomic bombings in Japan, which increased the risk of cancer in the victims, the biological risks of ionizing radiation have long been recognized. About half of the annual medical radiation exposure is attributed to CT, whose ionizing radiation dose is 100–500 times higher than that of traditional radiography [15, 16]. Pediatric CT scans are linked to a higher incidence of leukemia and brain tumors, according to several epidemiological studies [17,18,19,20,21,22]. The bone marrow in practically every part of the body is exposed to radiation from CT scans, and leukemia has a shorter latency period than radiation-associated solid tumors [23]. The amount of pediatric CT scans performed was quantitatively linked to a lifelong cancer risk in 2001, as demonstrated by Brenner et al. [24]. USA Today's top page instantly featured the story. The general public developed a negative opinion of pediatric CT, and some parents even refused to let their kids get CT [25]. It is necessary to strike the right balance between child protection and CT use. Numerous epidemiological studies have assessed the risks of cancer that follow radiation exposure from children CT scans [26,27,28,29]. According to Pearce et al. [30], there is a positive correlation between radiation exposure from CT scans and brain tumors and leukemia in terms of excess relative risk [31]. It is still unknown if having a previous CT scan increases the chance of cancer in youngsters, or if getting another one increases the risk. Furthermore, it is unclear if pediatric CT exposure raises a child's cancer risk to a higher degree than it does for children who are not exposed. There is disagreement among epidemiological research; whereas some [28,29,30,31] found an elevated risk of cancer, others [31] did not. When it comes to assessing congenital heart disease, cardiac CT has a much more comprehensive radiation dosage range than non-cardiac CT. This is due to the many scan techniques, such as non-electrocardiographic (ECG)-synchronized spiral scan, prospectively ECG-triggered sequential scan, or retrospectively ECG-gated spiral scan [32,33,34].
To optimize pediatric cardiac CT protocols, it is critical to identify variations in pediatric cardiac CT dosage and potential influencing factors [32]. Because of insufficient pediatric imaging specialists, streamlined protocols, suitable training, or efficient radiation monitoring, approaches for lowering pediatric CT radiation exposure are not available. Recent developments in hardware and software have made low-tube voltage scans and iterative reconstruction (IR) algorithms among the currently available CT dose optimization techniques is regarded generally practical and recommended procedures for low-dose pediatric CT [33, 34]. A methodological approach and a cautious implementation plan are required to optimize the potential for dose reduction while maintaining diagnostic image quality. The present study is aimed to evaluate the radiation dose in gated and non-gated cardiac CT at different tube potentials for preoperative diagnosis of children with congenital heart disease and to verify the dependence of “E” on multidimensional variables for both gated and non-gated cardiac CT at different tube potentials.
Methods
Subject
The prospective study was conducted in a tertiary care hospital from June 2022 to March 2024. The data source includes pediatric patients aged less than 15 years undergoing cardiac CT for the diagnosis of congenital heart disease on GE Healthcare Revolution EVO CT installed in the department of radiodiagnosis as per the standard protocol. This prospective study was approved by the University's Institutional Ethics Committee (Ref. No: IECJNMC/908, dated 26.10.2022). The guardian of the patient provided the written consent and software package installed in the control console and workstation of the unit generate the dose length product (DLP), and volume computed tomography dose index \(\left( {{\text{CTDI}}_{{{\text{vol}}}} } \right)\), and total \({\text{mAs}}\) for each examination specific to a patient. All the patients above 15 years of age, non-cooperative patients that could not maintain the proper position while imaging and other patients with any contraindication to computed tomography imaging were excluded from the study.
Effective dose
According to ICRP report-60 [35, 36], the weighted average of organ dose values \(\left( {H_{T} } \right)\) for a number of designated organs is the effective dose (E):
“Effective dose (E)” is measured in millisieverts \(\left( {{\text{mSv}}} \right)\). The tissue weighting factor \(\left( {w_{i} } \right)\) assigned to each organ indicates its relative sensitivity to radiation-induced effects, which determines how much that organ contributes to "E". It is not possible to measure the effective dose in-vivo. Because the anthropomorphic phantom-based thermoluminescent dosimeter (TLD)-based measurements take a long time, are not ideal for everyday use. As a result, "E" is obtained by multiplying the age and site corrected conversion factor (K) by the \({\text{DLP}}\left( {{\text{mGy}}\;{\text{cm}}} \right)\). Consequently, "E":
where “K” is conversion factor: Normalized effective dose per DLP values for different body parts and (standard) patient age groups [37, 38]. Following every CT imaging study, the \({\text{DLP}}\left( {{\text{mGy}}\;{\text{cm}}} \right)\) is shown as a dosage sheet, from which the value "E" is calculated with the help of Eq. (2).
Body mass index
Prior to imaging, each patient had their height and weight measured, and their body mass index (BMI) was computed using a specific, calibrated tool (Indosurgicals: weight and height measuring instrument). The patients were grouped according to the subcategories of the BMI data: underweight was defined as \({\text{BMI}} < 18.5\;{\text{kg}}\;{\text{m}}^{ - 2}\), normal weight as \(18.5 \le {\text{BMI}} \le 24.9\;{\text{kg}}\;{\text{m}}^{ - 2}\), overweight as \(25 \le {\text{BMI}} \le 29.9\;{\text{kg}}\;{\text{m}}^{ - 2}\), and obese as \({\text{BMI}} \ge 30\;{\text{kg}}\;{\text{m}}^{ - 2}\).
Statistical analysis
The statistical analysis was performed for both gated and non-gated cardiac CT datasets performed at \(100\;{\text{kV}}_{{\text{p}}}\) and \(80\;{\text{kV}}_{{\text{p}}}\) by using the Origin 6.0 (v6.1052[B232] Origin Lab Corporation, Northampton, MA 01060 USA) software. The 25th percentile, 50th percentile, and 75th percentile were computed in order to find where the given values fall within datasets (Tables 1, 2). The multivariate regression analysis was performed to verify the dependence of “E” on multidimensional variables for both gated and non-gated cardiac CT at different tube potentials (Tables 3, 4). Additionally, to test whether the difference between the doses received by patients during gated and non-gated pediatric cardiac CT is statistically significant or not, the Student’s t-test was performed at 95% level of significance \(\left( {p < 0.05} \right)\). The test verifies the variability of mean and standard deviation of the data (Table 5) [39].
Results
A total of 111 pediatric (Non-gated at \(100\;{\text{kV}}_{{\text{p}}} = 25\), non-gated at \(80\;{\text{kV}}_{{\text{p}}} = 36\), gated at \(100\;{\text{kV}}_{{\text{p}}} = 25\), and gated at \(80\;{\text{kV}}_{{\text{p}}} = 25\)) with an average age of 7.47 years, and ranging from 0.74 to 15 years were prospectively included in the study for estimation of effective dose. Nearly \(72.97\%\) of patients were under weight, and height, \(26.13\%\) were normal, and only \(0.9\%\)(only one patient) patients was overweight. The statistical analysis of E, \({\text{CTDI}}_{{{\text{vol}}}} \left( {{\text{mGy}}} \right)\), DLP, age, volume of the contrast agent (ml) injected, and heart rate for both gated and non-gated CT imaging at \(100\;{\text{kV}}_{{\text{p}}}\) and \(80\;{\text{kV}}_{{\text{p}}}\) is presented in Tables 1 and 2, respectively. Additionally, the whole data and mathematical calculations can be seen from the Additional file 1 (page 1 to 4). The mean value of effective dose for gated at \(100\;{\text{kV}}_{{\text{p}}}\) was observed to be \(4.71\;{\text{mSv}}\), with a minimum value of \(2.79\;{\text{mSv}}\), and a maximum value \(7.10\;{\text{mSv}}\). And for gated \(80\;{\text{kV}}_{{\text{p}}}\) technique, the mean value of E was found to be \(3.95\;{\text{mSv}}\) with a minimum value of \(2.31\;{\text{mSv}}\) and maximumof \(6.31\;{\text{mSv}}\), which is less than that of gated at \(100\;{\text{kV}}_{{\text{p}}}\) technique. The \({\text{CTDI}}_{{{\text{vol}}}} \left( {{\text{mGy}}} \right)\) and \({\text{DLP}}\left( {{\text{mGy}}\;{\text{cm}}} \right)\) values for gated \(100 \;{\text{kV}}_{{\text{p}}}\) were also found higher than that of gated \(80\;{\text{kV}}_{{\text{p}}}\) technique. The 25 and 75 percentile of E for gated \(100\;{\text{kV}}_{{\text{p}}}\) technique values were found to be \(3.6\;{\text{mSv}}\) and \(5.9\;{\text{mSv}}\) , respectively, and for gated \(80\;{\text{kV}}_{{\text{p}}}\), the 25 and 75 percentile values of E were \(2.89\;{\text{mSv}}\) and \(4.91\;{\text{mSv}}\) , respectively (Table 1). The average values of \({\text{CTDI}}_{{{\text{vol}}}}\), DLP, and E for non-gated techniques were found much less than that of the values seen in the gated technique for both \(100\;\;{\text{kV}}_{{\text{p}}}\) and \(80\;{\text{kV}}_{{\text{p}}}\) as shown in the Table 2. The mean value of “E” for non-gated at \(80\;{\text{kV}}_{{\text{p}}}\) is much less than that of the gated techniques as presented in Fig. 1. We compared the mean value of “E” with the literature published international studies (Table 6). Further, in case of non-gated cardiac CT at \(80\;{\text{kV}}_{{\text{p}}}\) , the mean value of “E” is found less than the mean values of “E” presented in the published literature across the globe.
In order to unfold the relation between “E” and multidimensional variables in pediatric cardiac CT imaging, multivariate regression analysis was performed. Multivariate regression analysis is strong statistical tool to verify the degree up to which the various dependent variables are linearly related to each other. The multivariate analysis shows that “E” is significant dependent on DLP for both gated and non-gated techniques at \(95\%\) level of significances with \(p < 0.05\) as shown in Tables 3 and 4. Further, the “E” is found negatively correlated with age and BMI of the children undergoing non-gated cardiac CT at \(100\;{\text{kV}}_{{\text{p}}}\) with \(p < 0.05\). For gated technique, the insignificant negative correlation of “E” with age and BMI is also observed both at \(100\;{\text{kV}}_{{\text{p}}}\) and \(80\;{\text{kV}}_{{\text{p}}}\). The student’s t-test was performed to present the comparison of two mean values of “E” for the two imaging techniques both at \(100\;{\text{kV}}_{{\text{p}}}\) and \(80\;{\text{kV}}_{{\text{p}}}\). As seen from the Table 5, the two means are significantly different at \(95\%\) level of significance with \(p < 0.05\). The image quality was blindly assessed by experienced radiologists, and the Fig. 2 presents the transverse view of the quality of images for both gated and non-gated techniques. Additionally, out of 111 patients, nearly 50% were operated and imaging findings of patients were compared with the surgical results.
Discussion
Multislice CT is advantageous for congenital heart disease research because it offers advantages over earlier helical CT, such as faster acquisition times, thinner slices, and ECG-gated acquisition. Specifically, short-term sedation is needed for multislice CT tests instead of complete anesthesia. Even in young children who are clinically unstable and frail, cardiac CT is being used more and more for non-invasive diagnostic imaging of congenital heart disease due to its accessibility, speed, and ability to provide detailed anatomical information. It suffers from radiation exposure and the use of iodine-containing contrast agents. Modern CT techniques, on the other hand, enable the high-quality and detailed projections of images at lower radiation doses. Nevertheless, modern CT methods offer a comprehensive and high-quality representation of cardiac architecture, thoracic vasculature, and extracardiac structures with relatively short examination times, reduced radiation exposure, and neonatal intubation [44]. For this reason, computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) have been proposed. The task force report recommends MRI as a first-line approach for various CHD diseases because it has proven beneficial [45]. However, the spatial resolution of MRIs is lower than CT scans, which could be a significant problem when trying to see small anatomical structures like coronary arteries. Helical CT has been suggested more recently to see anatomy in three dimensions for individuals with congenital heart disease. Even in newborns or infants, helical technology enables high-quality three-dimensional vascular images in a short amount of time through volume capture. With the improved ability to synchronize images with the cardiac beat, multislice CT technology offers a possible reduction in heart motion and a considerably faster acquisition time that significantly minimizes respiratory artifacts [46]. Electrocardiogram (ECG)-gated acquisition, reduced slice thickness, and quicker acquisition times are all made possible by the multislice CT.
The distribution of radiation dose in CT is significantly different from the conventional radiographic techniques because of the three distinct radiation dosage characteristics. Firstly, the volume of tissue that is exposed to radiation from the primary X-ray beam during the acquisition of a single CT image is significantly smaller due to the highly collimated nature of the X-ray beam, secondly, during the rotating acquisition, the irradiated tissue volume is exposed to the X-ray beam from nearly every angle, which more uniformly distributes the radiation dosage to the tissues in the beam and lastly, high contrast resolution in CT acquisition needs a high signal to noise ratio (SNR), which greatly enhances, the radiation dose to the slice due to the higher kV and mAs approaches utilized. Further, there is a significant amount of scattered radiation, which at times exceeds the radiation dose from the primary beam. Since scattered radiation is not restricted to the collimated beam profile as primary X-rays are, as a result significant dosage from scatter is delivered to surrounding tissues outside of the primary beam during the collection of a CT slice [47]. The radiation dose for a single CT scan of the organ under examination ranges from \(15\;{\text{mSv}}\) in adults to \(30\;{\text{mSv}}\) in neonates, depending on the machine settings. Two to three CT scans are routinely performed per study. Radiation-induced carcinogenesis is the most likely (though slight) risk at these dosages [47]. The concern is even more evident for youngsters, who are more at risk to radiation than adults are, both because of their natural radiosensitivity and the longer time span over which radiation-induced cancer is more likely to manifest itself. The first concern is whether ECG-gated acquisition should be used in patients with congenital heart disease (CHD); the second is the most appropriate protocol. To reduce radiation exposure, the radiation dosage supplied should be assessed for each procedure [48]. Therefore, patient dose management especially for pediatric patients during CT imaging is crucial ensuring that radiation safety precautions are appropriately followed [49].
The goal of the current investigation is to assess the radiation dosage levels and other relevant variables in cardiac CT in children with congenital heart disease. The DLP and “E” are excellent measures of radiation dose from CT and could be used to immediately improve the radiation safety standards by identifying when doses are much higher the reference values. The multiple regression analysis shows that “E” is significantly dependent on DLP at \(95\%\) level of significance with \(p < 0.05\). The dependence of “E” on DLP obvious because the DLP is the measure of CT tube radiation output and scan length is also multiplicative factor for radiation dose. The reduction of scan length of \(1 \;{\text{cm}}\) results nearly saving \(1\;{\text{mSv}}\) of radiation dose [50]. Our hospital is a central university medical college, which is a tertiary care referral center working as an apex center in the Western Uttar Pradesh, India, with the patients of all strata coming from a radius of nearly 150 km. Furthermore, the patients of staff, students from different parts of India, and many foreign students report for imaging. Approximately \(72.97\%\) of patients, we studied were under weight, and height, \(26.13\%\) was normal, and only \(0.9\%\)(only one patient) patients was overweight. The weak correlation between “E” and BMI is probable because the majority of the pediatric population we studied is under weight and height and negligible number of cases were overweight and none of the patients was obese. The negative correlation observed between “E” and age of the children may be attributed by the increase in age; the dimensions of the patient are increased and the radiation is distributed over a large volume of the patient while as the neonates and infants have very small size the distribution of radiation is over a smaller volume. The values of “E” are much higher for ECG-gated technique than non-gated CT imaging because in ECG-gated imaging only a part of the radiation dose is used in image formation. The statistically significant reduction of mean value of “E” in non-gated imaging techniques at \(80\;{\text{kV}}_{{\text{p}}}\) is obvious due to the reduction in the intensity of higher kilovoltage X-rays. Furthermore, the other advantages of using low \({\text{kV}}_{{\text{p}}}\) is the possibility for reduction of contrast volume injection, because low kilovoltage X-rays are more sensitive to iodinated contrast material than standard \(100\;{\text{kV}}_{{\text{p}}}\), \(120\;{\text{kV}}_{{\text{p}}}\) and \(140 \;{\text{kV}}_{{\text{p}}}\). Because of the iodine's k-edge \(\left( {33.2\;{\text{keV}}} \right)\), the reduced tube potential enhances subject contrast, particularly when imaging contrast-enhanced arteries.
Conclusions
The “Effective dose (E)” received by children is much higher when using ECG-gated acquisition with an average value of \(4.71\;{\text{mSv}}\) and \(3.95\;{\text{mSv}}\) at \(100 \;{\text{kV}}_{{\text{p}}}\), and at \(80\;{\text{kV}}_{{\text{p}}}\) respectively. Because low-voltage X-rays are more sensitive to high atomic number iodinated contrast media, non-gated cardiac CT imaging at \(80\;{\text{kV}}_{{\text{p}}}\) the mean effective dose \(2.26\;{\text{mSv}}\), and results significant reduction “Effective Dose (E)”. The decrease in tube voltage results is significant reduction of “Effective dose (E)” without comprising the image quality. In conclusion, the non-gated cardiac CT at \(80\;{\text{kV}}_{{\text{p}}}\) significantly reduced the effective dose (E) and yields the image quality equivalent to retrospectively ECG-gated coronary CT. Hence, radiation professionals should always consider utilizing exposure settings tailored specifically for children in order to reduce exposure as low as reasonably attainable (ALARA).
Availability of data and materials
The patient data for the present study are attached as supplementary file and can also be obtained from corresponding author upon justifiable request.
Abbreviations
- CHD:
-
Congenital heart diseases
- CT:
-
Computed tomography
- DLP:
-
Dose length product
- E:
-
Effective dose
- ECG:
-
Electrocardiogram
- MRI :
-
Magnetic resonance Imaging
- \({\text{CTDI}}_{{{\text{vol}}}}\) :
-
Computed tomography dose index volume
- \({\text{kV}}_{{\text{p}}}\) :
-
Kilo-Voltage Peak
References
Van der Linde D, Konings EEM, Slager MA (2011) Birth prevalence of congenital heart disease worldwide. J Am CollCardiol 58:22412247
Wu W, He J, Shao X (2020) Incidence and mortality trend of congenital heart disease at the global, regional, and national level 1990–2017. Medicine 99:23
Philipp S, Hans-Gerd K, Moritz W et al (2020) Cardiac CT in the preoperative diagnostics of neonates with congenital heart disease: radiation dose optimization by omitting test bolus or bolus tracking. Acad Radiol 27:e102–e108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2019.07.019
Chan FP (2009) MR and CT imaging of the pediatric patient with structural heart disease. Semin Thorac Cardio Vasc Surg Pediatr Card Surg Annu 12:99–105. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.pcsu.2009.01.009
Fratz S, Chung T, Greil GF (2013) Guidelines and protocols for cardio vascular magnetic resonance in children and adults with congenital heart disease: SCMR expert consensus group on congenital heart disease. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson 15:51. https://doi.org/10.1186/1532-429X-15-5
Soongswang J, Nana A, Laohaprasitiporn D et al (2000) Limitation of trans thoracic echocardiography in the diagnosis of congenital heart diseases. J Med Assoc Thai 83(Suppl. 2):S111–S117
Tsai IC, Lee T, Chen MC et al (2007) Visualization of neonatal coronary arteries on multi detector row CT: ECG-gated versus non-ECG-gated technique. Pediatr Radiol 37:818–825
Hou QR, Gao W, Sun AM et al (2017) 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 90:20160669
Hall EJ (2012) Brenner DJ (2014) Cancer risks from diagnostic radiology: the impact of new epidemiological data. Br J Radiol 85:e1316–e1317. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr/13739950
Piechowiak EI, Peter JF, Kleb B et al (2015) Intravenous iodinated contrast agents amplify DNA radiation damage at CT. Radiology 275:692–697. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.14132478
Goo HW, Park IS, Ko JK (2003) CT of congenital heart disease normal and typical pathologic conditions. Radiographics 23:S147–S165
Goo HW, Park IS, Ko JK et al (2005) Computed tomography for the diagnosis of congenital heart disease in pediatric and adult patients. Int J Card Imaging 21:347–365
Griffey RT, Sodickson A (2009) Cumulative radiation exposure and cancer risk estimates in emergency department patients undergoing repeat or multiple CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 192:887–892
Preston DL, Ron E, Tokuoka S et al (2007) (2007) Solid cancer incidence in atomic bomb survivors: 1958–1998. Radiat Res 168:1–64
Miglioretti DL, Johnson E, Williams A et al (2013) (2013) The use of computed tomography in pediatrics and the associated radiation exposure and estimated cancer risk. JAMA Pediatr 167:700–707
NakTscheol K, Soon-Sun K, Moon SP et al (2022) National trends in pediatric CT scans in South Korea: a nationwide cohort study. J Korean Soc Radiol 83(1):138–148. https://doi.org/10.3348/jksr.2021.0052eISSN2288-2928
Berrington DGA, Mahesh M, Kim KP et al (2009) Projected cancer risks from computed tomographic scans performed in the United States in 2007. Arch Intern Med 169:2071–2077
Pearce MS, Salotti JA, Little MP et al (2012) Radiation exposure from CT scans in childhood and subsequent risk of leukaemia and brain tumours: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet 380:499–505
Krille L, Dreger S, Schindel R et al (2015) Risk of cancer incidence before the age of 15 years after exposure to ionising radiation from computed tomography: results from a German cohort study. Radiat Environ Biophys 54:1–12
Huang WY, Muo CH, Lin CY et al (2014) Paediatric head CT scan and subsequent risk of malignancy and benign brain tumour: a nation-wide population-based cohort study. Br J Cancer 110:2354–2360
Mathews JD, Forsythe AV, Brady Z et al (2013) Cancer risk in 680,000 people exposed to computed tomography scans in childhood or adolescence: data linkage study of 11 million Australians. BMJ 346:f2360
Meulepas JM, Ronckers CM, Smets AMJB et al (2019) Radiation exposure from pediatric CT scans and subsequent cancer risk in the Netherlands. J Natl Cancer Inst 111:256–263
Meulepas JM, Ronckers CM, Smets AM et al (2014) Leukemia and brain tumors among children after radiation exposure from CT scans: design and methodological opportunities of the Dutch Pediatric CT Study. Eur J Epidemiol 29:293–301
Brenner D, Elliston C, Hall E, Berdon W (2001) Estimated risks of radiation-induced fatal cancer from pediatric CT. AJR 176(2):289–296
Larson DB, Rader SB, Forman HP et al (2007) Informing parents about CT radiation exposure in children: it’s ok to tell them. AJR 189(2):271–275
Frush DP, Goske M (2015) Image gently: toward optimizing the practice of pediatric CT through resources and dialogue. Pediatric Radiol 45(4):471–475
Feng ST, Law MW, Huang B et al (2010) (2010) Radiation dose and cancer risk from pediatric CT examinations on 64-slice CT: a phantom study. Europ J Radiol 76(2):e19–e23
Meulepas JM, Ronckers CM, Smets A et al (2018) Radiation exposure from pediatric CT scans and subsequent cancer risk in the Netherlands. J Natl Cancer Inst 110(10):1154
Zhou PK (2018) Huang RX (2018) Targeting of the respiratory chain by toxicants: beyond the toxicities to mitochondrial morphology. Toxicol Res-UK 7(6):1008–1011
Pearce MS, Salotti JA, Little MP et al (2012) Radiation exposure from CT scans in childhood and subsequent risk of leukaemia and brain tumours: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet 380(9840):499–505
Berrington de Gonzalez A, Journy N, Lee C et al (2017) No association between radiation dose from pediatric CT scans and risk of subsequent Hodgkin lymphoma. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 26(5):804–806
Krishnamurthy R (2010) Neonatal cardiac imaging. Pediatr Radiol 40:518–527. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00247-010-1549-2
Raimondi F, Warin-Fresse K (2016) Computed tomography imaging in children with congenital heart disease: indications and radiation dose optimization. Arch Cardiovasc Dis 109:150–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acvd.2015.11.003
Puranik R, Muthurangu V, Celermajer DS et al (2010) Congenital heart diseaseand multi-modality imaging. Hear Lung Circ 19:133–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hlc.2010.01.001
International Commission for Radiological Protection (ICRP) (1991), ICRP Publication 60. (1990). “Recommendations of the International Commission for Radiological Protection”, 60. Oxford (UK): Pergamon.
Shah MA, Ahmad M, Khalid S et al (2023) Multivariate analysis of effective dose and size-specific dose estimates for thorax and abdominal computed tomography. J Med Phys 48:210–218
Shrimpton PC, Hillier MC, Lewis MA et al (2006) National survey of doses from CT in the UK: 2003. Br J Radiol 79:968–980
Huda W, Atherton JV (1994) Energy imparted in computed tomography. Med Phys 22:1263–1269
Richard FM (1998) Introductory medical statistics. 3rd ed., Ch.11. Bristol and Philadelphia: Institute of Physics Publishing.
Ghoshhajra BB, Lee AM, Engel LC et al (2014) Radiation dose reduction in pediatric cardiac computed tomography: experience from a tertiary medical center. Pediatr Cardiol 35:171–179
Westra SJ, Li X, Gulati K et al (2014) Entrance skin dosimetry and size-specific dose estimate from pediatric chest CTA. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr 8:97–107
Serap B, Utku ABA (2022) Evaluation of complex congenital heart disease with prospective ECG-gated cardiac CT in a single heartbeat at low tube voltage (70 kV) and adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction in infants: a single center experience. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 38:413–422. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10554-021-02390-1
Moez BS, Adela Rand Anne SC et al (2009) Evaluation of image quality and radiation dose of thoracic and coronary dual-source CT in 110 infants with congenital heart disease. Pediatr Radiol 39:668–676. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00247-009-1209-6
Dodge-Khatami J, Adebo DA (2021) Evaluation of complex congenital heart disease in infants using low dose cardiac computed tomography. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 37(4):1455–1460. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10554-020-02118-7
Tennant PWG, Pearce MS, Bythell M et al (2012) 20-year survival of children born with congenital anomalies: a population-based study. Lancet 375:649–656. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61922-X
Walsh MA, Noga M, Rutledge J (2015) Cumulative radiation exposure in pediatric patients with congenital heart disease. Pediatr Cardiol 36:289–294. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00246-014-0999-y
Huda W, Atherton JV (1994) Energy imparted in computed tomography. Med Phys 1994(22):1263–1269
National Research Council (1990) Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiations (1990) Health effects of exposure to low levels of ionizing radiation (BEIR V) Washington. National Academy Press, DC
Frush DP, Donnelly LF, Rosen NS (2003) Computed tomography and radiation risks: what pediatric health care providers should know. Paediatrics 112:951–957
John RM, Jonathon AL (2009) Radiation dose in cardiac CT. American Roentgen Society AJR: 192, March
Acknowledgements
Many thanks to all the staff members and our colleagues who helped us to complete the study.
Funding
Nil.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
The concept for the current study came from the corresponding author Mudasir Ashraf Shah. All the authors also cooperated on the work design, data collection, data interpretation, validation, and technique, as well as draft and revision writing. The final manuscript has been read and approved by all contributors.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate
The study was approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee (Ref. No: IECJNMC/908, dated 26.10.2022), Aligarh Muslim University. The written consent was obtained from the guardian of the patients for the present study. The study was conducted from June 2023 to June 2024.
Consent for publication
All patients included in this study gave informed consent to publish the data contained within this study.
Competing interests
The authors declare that there is no potential competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Shahid, S., Ahmad, M., Abqari, S. et al. Radiation dose in cardiac CT for preoperative diagnosis of children with congenital heart disease. Egypt J Radiol Nucl Med 55, 192 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s43055-024-01368-y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s43055-024-01368-y