Pulmonary perfusion by chest digital dynamic radiography: Comparison between breath‐holding and deep‐breathing acquisition. Issue 11 (26th October 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Yamamoto, Shota; Hasebe, Terumitsu; Tomita, Kosuke; Kamei, Shunsuke; Matsumoto, Tomohiro; Imai, Yutaka; Takahashi, Genki; Kondo, Yusuke; Ito, Yoko; Sakamaki, Fumio
• Is Part Of: Journal of applied clinical medical physics. Volume 21:Issue 11(2020)
• Page Start: 247
• Page End: 255
• Publication Date: 2020-10-26
• Subjects: digital dynamic radiography -- pulmonary perfusion -- respiratory disease -- respiratory artifact -- x‐ray; Medical physics -- Periodicals; Clinical medicine -- Periodicals; Health Physics; Clinical Medicine; Electronic journals; Periodicals; Periodicals; Fulltext; Internet Resources; 610.153
• DOI: 10.1002/acm2.13071
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1526-9914

Abstract

Abstract: Purpose: Pulmonary perfusion is an important factor for gas exchange. Chest digital dynamic radiography (DDR) by the deep‐breathing protocol can evaluate pulmonary perfusion in healthy subjects. However, respiratory artifacts may affect DDR in patients with respiratory diseases. We examined the feasibility of a breath‐holding protocol and compared it with the deep‐breathing protocol to reduce respiratory artifacts. Materials and methods: A total of 42 consecutive patients with respiratory diseases (32 males; age, 68.6 ± 12.3 yr), including 21 patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, underwent chest DDR through the breath‐holding protocol and the deep‐breathing protocol. Imaging success rate and exposure to radiation were compared. The correlation rate of temporal changes in each pixel value between the lung fields and left cardiac ventricles was analyzed. Results: Imaging success rate was higher with the breath‐holding protocol vs the deep‐breathing protocol (97% vs 69%, respectively; P < 0.0001). The entrance surface dose was lower with the breath‐holding protocol (1.09 ± 0.20 vs 1.81 ± 0.08 mGy, respectively; P < 0.0001). The correlation rate was higher with the breath‐holding protocol (right lung field, 41.7 ± 9.3%; left lung field, 44.2 ± 8.9% vs right lung field, 33.4 ± 6.6%; left lung field, 36.0 ± 7.1%, respectively; both lung fields, P < 0.0001). In the lower lung fields, the correlation rate was markedly different (right, 15.3% difference; left, 14.1% difference; both lung fields, P < 0.0001). Conclusion: The breath‐holding protocol resulted in high imaging success rate among patients with respiratory diseases, yielding vivid images of pulmonary perfusion.