Ionizing Radiation in Medical Imaging and Efforts in Dose Optimization

Medical-related radiation is the largest source of controllable radiation exposure to humans and it accounts for more than 95% of radiation exposure from man-made sources. Its direct benefits in modern day medical practices are beyond doubt but risks-benefits ratios need to be constantly monitored as the use of ionizing radiation is increasing rapidly. From 1980 to 2006, the per-capita effective dose from diagnostic and interventional medical procedures in the United States increased almost six fold, from 0.5 to 3.0mSv, while contributions from other sources remained static (NCRP report no 160, 2009). This chapter will review radiation exposure from medical imaging initially starting from a historical viewpoint as well as discussing innovative technologies on the horizon. The challenges for the medical community in addressing the increasing trend of radiation usage will be discussed as well as the latest research in dose justification and optimization.link_to_OA_fulltex

Early Computed Tomography Coronary Angiography and Preventative Treatment in Patients with Suspected Acute Coronary Syndrome A secondary analysis of the RAPID-CTCA trial

BackgroundComputed tomography coronary angiography (CTCA) offers detailed assessment of the presence of coronary atherosclerosis and helps guide patient management. We investigated influences of early CTCA on the subsequent use of preventative treatment in patients with suspected acute coronary syndrome.MethodsIn this secondary analysis of a multicentre randomised controlled trial of early CTCA in intermediate-risk patients with suspected acute coronary syndrome, prescription of aspirin, P2Y12 receptor antagonist, statin, renin–angiotensin system blocker, and beta-blocker therapies from randomisation to discharge were compared within then between those randomised to early CTCA or to standard of care only. Effects of CTCA findings on adjustment of these therapies were further examined.ResultsIn 1743 patients (874 randomised to early CTCA and 869 to standard of care only), prescription of P2Y12 receptor antagonist, dual antiplatelet, and statin therapiesincreased more in the early CTCA group (between-group difference: 4.6% (95% confidence interval, 0.3 to 8.9), 4.5% (95% confidence interval, 0.2 to 8.7), and 4.3% (95% confidence interval, 0.2 to 8.5), respectively), whereas prescription of other preventative therapies increased by similar extent in both study groups. Amongst patients randomised to early CTCA, there were additional increments of preventative treatment in those with obstructive coronary artery disease and higher rates of 6 reductions in antiplatelet and beta-blocker therapies in those with normal coronary arteries.ConclusionsPrescription patterns of preventative treatment varied during index hospitalisation in patients with suspected acute coronary syndrome. Early CTCA facilitated targeted individualisation of these therapies based on the extent of coronary artery disease.<br/

Recommendations for accurate CT diagnosis of suspected acute aortic syndrome (AAS)-on behalf of the British Society of Cardiovascular Imaging (BSCI)/British Society of Cardiovascular CT (BSCCT)

Accurate and timely assessment of suspected acute aortic syndrome is crucial in this life-threatening condition. Imaging with CT plays a central role in the diagnosis to allow expedited management. Diagnosis can be made using locally available expertise with optimized scanning parameters, making full use of recent advances in CT technology. Each imaging centre must optimize their protocols to allow accurate diagnosis, to optimize radiation dose and in particular to reduce the risk of false-positive diagnosis that may simulate disease. This document outlines the principles for the acquisition of motion-free imaging of the aorta in this context.published_or_final_versio

The RAPID-CTCA trial (Rapid Assessment of Potential Ischaemic Heart Disease with CTCA) - a multicentre parallel-group randomised trial to compare early computerised tomography coronary angiography versus standard care in patients presenting with suspected or confirmed acute coronary syndrome: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Emergency department attendances with chest pain requiring assessment for acute coronary syndrome (ACS) are a major global health issue. Standard assessment includes history, examination, electrocardiogram (ECG) and serial troponin testing. Computerised tomography coronary angiography (CTCA) enables additional anatomical assessment of patients for coronary artery disease (CAD) but has only been studied in very low-risk patients. This trial aims to investigate the effect of early CTCA upon interventions, event rates and health care costs in patients with suspected/confirmed ACS who are at intermediate risk. METHODS/DESIGN: Participants will be recruited in about 35 tertiary and district general hospitals in the UK. Patients ≥18 years old with symptoms with suspected/confirmed ACS with at least one of the following will be included: (1) ECG abnormalities, e.g. ST-segment depression >0.5 mm; (2) history of ischaemic heart disease; (3) troponin elevation above the 99(th) centile of the normal reference range or increase in high-sensitivity troponin meeting European Society of Cardiology criteria for 'rule-in' of myocardial infarction (MI). The early use of ≥64-slice CTCA as part of routine assessment will be compared to standard care. The primary endpoint will be 1-year all-cause death or recurrent type 1 or type 4b MI at 1 year, measured as the time to such event. A number of secondary clinical, process and safety endpoints will be collected and analysed. Cost effectiveness will be estimated in terms of the lifetime incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year gained. We plan to recruit 2424 (2500 with ~3% drop-out) evaluable patients (1212 per arm) to have 90% power to detect a 20% versus 15% difference in 1-year death or recurrent type 1 MI or type 4b MI, two-sided p < 0.05. Analysis will be on an intention-to-treat basis. The relationship between intervention and the primary outcome will be analysed using Cox proportional hazard regression adjusted for study site (used to stratify the randomisation), age, baseline Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events score, previous CAD and baseline troponin level. The results will be expressed as a hazard ratio with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals and p value. DISCUSSION: The Rapid Assessment of Potential Ischaemic Heart Disease with CTCA (RAPID-CTCA) trial will recruit 2500 participants across about 35 hospital sites. It will be the first study to investigate the role of CTCA in the early assessment of patients with suspected or confirmed ACS who are at intermediate risk and including patients who have raised troponin measurements during initial assessment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN19102565 . Registered on 3 October 2014. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02284191

Downstream testing after CT coronary angiography: time for a rethink?

OBJECTIVE: We surveyed UK practice and compliance with the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) 'recent-onset chest pain' guidance (Clinical Guideline 95, 2016) as a service quality initiative. We aimed to evaluate the diagnostic utility and efficacy of CT coronary angiography (CTCA), NICE-guided investigation compliance, invasive coronary angiography (ICA) use and revascularisation. METHODS: A prospective analysis was conducted in nine UK centres between January 2018 and March 2020. The reporter decided whether the CTCA was diagnostic. Coronary artery disease was recorded with the Coronary Artery Disease-Reporting and Data System (CAD-RADS). Local electronic records and picture archiving/communication systems were used to collect data regarding functional testing, ICA and revascularisation. Duplication of coronary angiography without revascularisation was taken as a surrogate for ICA overuse. RESULTS: 5293 patients (mean age, 57±12 years; body mass index, 29±6 kg/m²; 50% men) underwent CTCA, with a 96% diagnostic scan rate. 618 (12%) underwent ICA, of which 48% (298/618) did not receive revascularisation. 3886 (73%) had CAD-RADS 0-2, with 1% (35/3886) undergoing ICA, of which 94% (33/35) received ICA as a second-line test. 547 (10%) had CAD-RADS 3, with 23% (125/547) undergoing ICA, of which 88% (110/125) chose ICA as a second-line test, with 26% (33/125) leading to revascularisation. For 552 (10%) CAD-RADS 4 and 91 (2%) CAD-RADS 5 patients, ICA revascularisation rates were 64% (221/345) and 74% (46/62), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: While CTCA for recent-onset chest pain assessment has been shown to be a robust test, which negates the need for further investigation in three-quarters of patients, subsequent ICA overuse remains with almost half of these procedures not leading to revascularisation.The article is available via Open Access. Click on the 'Additional link' above to access the full-text.Published version, accepted version, submitted versio

Early computed tomography coronary angiography and preventative treatment in patients with suspected acute coronary syndrome: A secondary analysis of the RAPID-CTCA trial

BACKGROUND: Computed tomography coronary angiography (CTCA) offers detailed assessment of the presence of coronary atherosclerosis and helps guide patient management. We investigated influences of early CTCA on the subsequent use of preventative treatment in patients with suspected acute coronary syndrome. METHODS: In this secondary analysis of a multicenter randomized controlled trial of early CTCA in intermediate-risk patients with suspected acute coronary syndrome, prescription of aspirin, P2Y12 receptor antagonist, statin, renin-angiotensin system blocker, and beta-blocker therapies from randomization to discharge were compared within then between those randomized to early CTCA or to standard of care only. Effects of CTCA findings on adjustment of these therapies were further examined. RESULTS: In 1,743 patients (874 randomized to early CTCA and 869 to standard of care only), prescription of P2Y12 receptor antagonist, dual antiplatelet, and statin therapies increased more in the early CTCA group (between-group difference: 4.6% [95% confidence interval, 0.3-8.9], 4.5% [95% confidence interval, 0.2-8.7], and 4.3% [95% confidence interval, 0.2-8.5], respectively), whereas prescription of other preventative therapies increased by similar extent in both study groups. Among patients randomized to early CTCA, there were additional increments of preventative treatment in those with obstructive coronary artery disease and higher rates of reductions in antiplatelet and beta-blocker therapies in those with normal coronary arteries. CONCLUSIONS: Prescription patterns of preventative treatment varied during index hospitalization in patients with suspected acute coronary syndrome. Early CTCA facilitated targeted individualization of these therapies based on the extent of coronary artery disease

Randomized comparison of chest pain evaluation with FFRCT or standard care: Factors determining US costs

Background: FFR CT assesses the functional significance of lesions seen on CTCA, and may be a more efficient approach to chest pain evaluation. The FORECAST randomized trial found no significant difference in costs within the UK National Health Service, but implications for US costs are unknown. The purpose of this study was to compare costs in the FORECAST trial based on US healthcare cost weights, and to evaluate factors affecting costs. Methods: patients with stable chest pain were randomized either to the experimental strategy (CTCA with selective FFR CT), or to standard clinical pathways. Pre-randomization, the treating clinician declared the planned initial test. The primary outcome was nine-month cardiovascular care costs. Results: planned initial tests were CTCA in 912 patients (65%), stress testing in 393 (28%), and invasive angiography in 94 (7%). Mean US costs did not differ overall between the experimental strategy and standard care (cost difference +7% (+$324), CI −12% to +26%, p ​= ​0.49). Costs were 4% lower with the experimental strategy in the planned invasive angiography stratum (p for interaction ​= ​0.66). Baseline factors independently associated with costs were older age (+43%), male sex (+55%), diabetes (+37%), hypertension (+61%), hyperlipidemia (+94%), prior angina (+24%), and planned invasive angiography (+160%). Post-randomization cost drivers were coronary revascularization (+348%), invasive angiography (267%), and number of tests (+35%). Conclusions: initial evaluation of chest pain using CTCA with FFR CT had similar US costs as standard care pathways. Costs were increased by baseline coronary risk factors and planned invasive angiography, and post-randomization invasive procedures and the number of tests. Registration at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03187639). </p