4.6 Article

Radiation dose to patients and public exposure in cardiac rest and stress single photon emission computed tomography examinations

期刊

RADIATION PHYSICS AND CHEMISTRY
卷 216, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.radphyschem.2023.111383

关键词

SPECT; 99mTc; Cardiac imaging; Patient dose; Nuclear medicine

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cardiovascular nuclear medicine imaging examinations expose patients to high doses of ionizing radiation. This study assessed the radiation doses and public exposure in cardiac rest and stress SPECT scans. The effective dose from cardiac stress was higher than previous studies, which may be influenced by clinical indication imaging protocols and radiation safety measures.
Cardiovascular nuclear medicine (NM) imaging examinations expose patients to extremely high absorbed doses of ionizing radiation, which necessitates extensive efforts to reduce the doses without compromising the quality of images. This study aims to assess patients' radiation doses to patients and public exposure in Cardiac rest and stress single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) scans. The patients' exposure was calculated for 21 patients using the administered activity (AA, MBq). (GE SPECT) was the device used for all patients. AA (MBq) mean and range were 370 for Rest and 1110 for Stress. The average range of the dose rate was 1.59 (0.67-2.34) mR/h for rest and 7.29 (4.2-9.98) mR/h for stress when computed at 30 cm from the patient's chest level after injection. At 100 cm from the patient, the mean dose rate values were 0.37 (0.16-0.73) mR/h for rest and 1.39 (1.01-2.0) mR/h for stress. The overall effective dose is 12.1 mSv per rest and stress SPECT procedure. The mean effective dose for cardiac rest is comparable with previously published studies while the effective dose from cardiac stress is higher than previously published studies. The variation in the effective dose depends on several factors, including the department's clinical indication imaging protocols and radiation safety measures.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据