XperSwing技术与常规冠状动脉造影的辐射剂量对比模体研究

目的 研究常规冠状动脉造影(CCA)与采用XperSwing技术冠状动脉造影的辐射剂量差异.方法 应用中国人仿真胸部体模,采用XperSwing和CCA2种检查技术,将热释光个人剂量计(TLD)布放于仿真胸部体模的主要组织器官,测量各组织器官的吸收剂量并读取设备的剂量面积乘积(DAP)值.实际测量有效剂量等于组织器官吸收剂量乘以相应组织权重因子后的总和；设备读取的有效剂量等于DAP乘以转换因子(0.185 mSv/ Gy·cm2).结果 采用XperSwing技术造影的组织器官平均吸收剂量低于CCA检查；CCA和XperSwing技术造影的设备读取平均有效剂量分别为3.88和3.13 mSv,低于实际测量的平均有效剂量(5.57和4.94 mSv).结论 采用XperSwing技术的辐射剂量低于CCA,设备读取的有效剂量有可能低估了患者实际接受的有效剂量水平.

Comparison of radiation dose between XperSwing technique and conventional coronary angiography: phantom study

Objective To evaluate the effective organ radiation dose in patients with conventional coronary angiography(CCA) and XperSwing coronary angiography. Methods The operating environment of CCA and XperSwing coronary angiography was simulated using the Chinese anthropomorphic chest phantom. The thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) were placed on major organs of the phantomm. The organs' absorbed doses were measured and the dose-area products (DAPs) were recorded. The real effective dose was the summation of products of every organs' absorbed dose × a factor. The calculated effective doses was the product of the DAP × a factor. Results The average absorbed effective doses of XperSwing coronary angiography were lower than that of the CCA. The calculated effective doses of CCA and XperSwing coronary angiography were 3.88 mSv and 3.13 mSv, respectively, and less than the real ones (5.57 mSv, 4.94 mSv). Conclusions XperSwing coronary angiography would have less radiation dose than CCA does. The calculated effective dose would be less than the real one.