CTCA中应用低kV和CARE Dose 4D技术对钙化积分测量的影响

目的：探讨冠状动脉成像（CTCA）检查中应用低kV和CARE Dose 4D管电流调节技术对钙化积分测量的影响。方法选择2013年2月～7月于本院行冠状动脉成像的患者268例，随机分成两组，A组134例每位患者分别用常规120 kV及120 kV，CARE Dose 4D技术扫描钙化积分；B组134例患者分别用常规120 kV及100 kV，CARE Dose 4D技术扫描钙化积分，分别测量和计算钙化积分、平均容积CT剂量指数、剂量长度乘积、有效剂量，并将得到的结果进行统计分析。结果A组两种扫描方法得到的钙化积分值分别为（235.45±285.26）和（224.18±270.81）；平均容积CT剂量指数分别为（2.13±0.017） mGy和（1.61±0.28） mGy；剂量长度乘积分别为（31.84±2.91） mGy·cm和（24.15±4.46） mGy·cm；有效剂量分别为（0.476±0.046） mSv和（0.366±0.081） mSv；A组两种扫描方法所得数据差异均有统计学意义。B组两种扫描方法得到的钙化积分值分别为（181.46±204.79）和（185.14±207.55）；平均容积CT剂量指数分别为（2.13±0.01） mGy和（0.90±0.18） mGy；剂量长度乘积分别为（30.69±.017） mGy·cm和（12.90±2.40） mGy·cm；有效剂量分别为（0.448±0.019） mSv和（0.189±0.035） mSv，B组两种扫描方法所得剂量差异有统计学意义，钙化积分差异没有统计学意义。结论保持120 kV并使用CARE Dose 4D技术虽然降低了辐射剂量，但是对钙化积分测量有影响；而100 kV和CARE Dose 4D技术同时使用，在不影响钙化积分计算的同时大幅度降低了辐射剂量，值得推广。

Impact of Low kV and CARE Dose 4D Technology on the Measurement of Calciifcation Score in CTCA

Objective To evaluate the impact of low kV and CARE Dose 4D tube current regulation technology on the measurement of calciifcation score. Methods 268 patients who conducted CT coronary angiography （CTCA） from February 2013 to July 2013 in our hospital were divided into two groups randomly. In group A, 134 patients underwent CTCA with conventional 120 kV and 120 kV with CARE Dose 4D technology. In group B, the rest 134 patients underwent CTCA with 120 kV and 100 kV with CARE Dose 4D technology. The values of calciifcation score, average volume CT dose index （CTDIvol）, dose-length product （DLP） and effective dose （ED） were respectively calculated and statistically analyzed. Result In group A, the calciifcation scores tested by the two methods were （235.45±285.26） and （224.18±270.81）, respectively;the values of CTDIvol were （2.13±0.017） mGy and （1.61±0.28） mGy, respectively;the values of DLP were （31.84±2.91） mGy·cm and （24.15±4.46） mGy·cm, respectively;the values of ED were （0.476±0.046） mSv and （0.366±0.081） mSv, respectively. There were signiifcant differences in calciifcation score, CTDIvol, DLP and ED between the two methods in group A. In group B, the calciifcation scores of two methods were （181.46±204.79） and （185.14±207.55）, respectively; the values of CTDIvol were （2.13±0.01） mGy and （0.90±0.18mGy）, respectively; the values of DLP were （30.69±0.17） mGy·cm and （12.90±2.40） mGy·cm, respectively;the values of ED were （0.448±0.019） mSv and （0.189±0.035） mSv, respectively. There were signiifcant differences in CTDIvol, DLP and ED between the two methods in group B. However, in group B, there was no signiifcant difference in calciifcation scores between the two methods. Conclusion By applying 120 kV and CARE Dose technology, radiation dose was reduced, but it would impact the measurement of calciifcation score. However, applying 100 kV and CARE Dose technology simultaneously can reduce radiation dose signiifcantly