【摘要】 目的对比320排CT冠脉成像(CTCA)与冠脉造影(CAG)两种技术对患者辐射剂量的差别。方法随机抽取接受320排CTCA检查的90例患者为A组,其中7例采用钙化积分(CI)扫描,为A1组;43例采用CT冠脉成像/心功能分析扫描(CTCA/CFA),为A2组;40例采用前瞻性扫描(Prospective CTA),为A3组。随机抽取接受CAG检查的139例患者为B组,分别对各组射线剂量进行对比。结果 A组与B组、A1组与B组、A2组与B组、A1组与A3组、A2组与A3组比较,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05)。A3组与B组、A1组与A2组比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论对于需接受320排CTCA的患者,尽量采用Prospective CTA,以减少对患者的辐射剂量。更多还原

【Abstract】 Objective To contrast the radiation dose to patients of 320row CT coronary artery imaging(CTCA)and coronary angiography(CAG).Methods 90patients random sampled with 320row CTCA were group A.Among of them,7patients with calcification integral scanning(CI)were A1group;43patients with CT coronary artery imaging/cardiac function analysis scanning(CTCA/CFA)were A2group;40patients with Prospective scanning(Prospective CTA)were A3group;139patients random sampled with CAG were group B.Results Radiation dose had statistically significant between Group A and group B,A1and B,A2and B,A1and A3,A2and A3(P<0.05).radiation dose had no statistically significant between Group A3and group B,A1and A2(P> 0.05).Conclusion In order to reduce the radiation dose to patients,the prospective CTCA was used in the patients need 320row CTCA as far as possible.更多还原