Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Cardiovascular X-ray Imaging: Physics, Equipment, and Techniques

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Textbook of Catheter-Based Cardiovascular Interventions

  • 567 Accesses

Abstract

Interventionists performing catheter-based procedures on the cardiovascular system should be familiar with the basic operations and functions of the employed X-ray imaging equipment. Although palpable differences in X-ray technology between manufacturers exist, the principles and modes of operation are identical across the board. In this chapter, the basic physical and technical principles of X-ray machines dedicated to cardiovascular interventional imaging are reviewed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 279.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Bushberg JT, Siebert JA, Boone JM, Leidtholdt EM. The essential physics of medical imaging. 2nd ed. Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia: Lippincott; 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Dowsett DJ, Kenny PA, Johnston RE. The physics of diagnostic imaging. 2nd ed. London: Hodder Arnold; 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Momose A, Takeda T, Itai Y. Blood vessels: depiction at phase contrast X-ray imaging with contrast agents in the mouse and rat—feasibility study. Radiology. 2000;217:593–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Partridge MJ, McGahan G, Causton S, Bowers M, Mason M, Dalby M, Mitchell A. Radiation dose reduction without compromise of image quality in cardiac angiography and intervention with the use of a flat panel detector without an antiscatter grid. Heart. 2006;92:507–10.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Boone JM, Seibert JA. A figure of merit comparison between bremsstrahlung and monoenergetic X-ray sources for angiography. J Xray Sci Technol. 1994;4:334–45.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Gislason AJ, Davies AG, Cowen AR. Dose optimization in paediatric cardiac X-ray imaging. Med Phys. 2010;37(10):5258–69.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Lin PJ. Technical advances of interventional and flat panel image receptor. Health Phys. 2008;95(5):650–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Seibert JA. Flat-panel detectors: how much better are they? Pediatr Radiol. 2006;36(Suppl 2):173–81.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Holmes DR, Laskey WK, Wondrow MA, Cusma JT. Flat-panel detectors in the cardiac catheterization laboratory: revolution or evolution—what are the issues? Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2004;63:324–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Balter S. Interventional fluoroscopy: physics, technology and safety. New York: Wiley-Liss; 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Mistretta CA, Crummy AB. Diagnosis of cardiovascular disease by digital subtraction angiography. Science. 1981;214:761–5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Mistretta CA, Kruger RA, Ergun DL, Shaw CG, Crummy AB, Strother CM, Sackett JF, Myerowitz PD, Turnipseed WD, Zarnstorff WC, van Lysel MS, Lancaster JC, Ruzicka FF. Digital vascular imaging. Medicamundi. 1981;26(1):1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Ludwig JW, Verhoeven LHJ, Engels PHC. Digital video subtraction angiography (DVSA) equipment: angiographic technique in comparison with conventional angiography in different in different vascular areas. Br J Radiol. 1982;55:545–53.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Verhoeven LAJ. DSA imaging: some physical and technical aspects. Medicamundi. 1985;30:46–55.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Brody WR. Hybrid subtraction for improved arteriography. Radiology. 1981;141:828–31.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Hoff DJ, Wallace MC, ter Brugge KG, Gentili F. Rotational angiography assessment of cerebral aneurysms. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 1994;15(10):1945–8.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Tu RT, Cohen WA, Maravilla KR, Bush WH, Patel NH, Eskridge J, Winn HR. Digital subtraction rotational angiography for aneurysms of the intracranial anterior circulation: injection method and optimization. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 1996;17:1127–36.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Seymour HR, Matson MB, Belli A-M, Morgan R, Kyriou J, Patel U. Rotational digital subtraction angiography of the renal arteries: technique and evaluation in the study of native and transplant renal arteries. Br J Radiol. 2001;74:134–41.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Maddux JT, Wink O, Messenger JC, Groves BM, Liao R, Strzelczyk J, Chen S-YJ, Carroll JD. Randomized study of the safety and clinical utility of rotational angiography versus standard angiography in the diagnosis of coronary artery disease. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2004;62:167–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Raman SV, Morford R, Neff M, Attar TT, Kukielka G, Magorien RD, Bush CA. Rotational X-ray coronary angiography. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2004;63:201–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Akhtar M, Vakharia KT, Mishell J, Gera A, Ports TA, Yeghiazarians Y, Michaels AD. Randomized study of the safety and clinical utility of rotational vs standard coronary angiography using a flat-panel detector. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2005;66:43–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Moret J, Kemkers R, Op de Beek J, Koppe R, Klotz E, Grass M. 2D rotational angiography: clinical value in endovascular treatment. Medicamundi. 1998;42(3):8–14.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Hochmuth A, Spetzger U, Schumacher M. Comparison of three dimensional rotational angiography with digital subtraction angiography in the assessment of ruptured cerebral aneurysms. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2002;23:1199–205.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Feldkamp LA, Davis LC, Kress JW. Practical cone beam algorithm. J Opt Soc Am. 1984;A1(6):612–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Scott D, Davies AG, Cowen AR, Workman A. Technique for 3D reconstruction of arteries from angiographic projections. In: Lemke HU, Inamura K, Jaffe CC, Felix R, editors. Proceedings computer assisted radiology. Berlin: Springer; 1993. p. 541–6.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Grass M, Koppe R, Klotz PR, Kuhn MH, Aerts H, Op de Beek J, Kemkers R. Three-dimensional reconstruction of high contrast objects using C-arm image intensifier projection data. Comput Med Imaging Graph. 1999;23:311–21.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Siewerdsen JH, Jaffrey DA. Cone-beam computed tomography with a flat-panel imager: magnitude and effects of scatter. Med Phys. 2004;28:22–3.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Muijderman EA, Roelandse CD, Vetter A, Schreiber P. A diagnostic X-ray tube with spiral-groove bearings. Philips Tech Rev. 1989;44(11/12):357–63.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Schmidt T, Behling R. MRC: a successful platform for future X-ray tube development. Medicamundi. 2000;44(2):50–5.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Hahn H, Farber D, Allmendinger H, Brendler J. Grid-controlled fluoroscopy in pediatric radiology. Medicamundi. 1997;41(1):12–7.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Hernandez RJ, Goodsitt MM. Reduction of radiation dose in pediatric patients using pulsed fluoroscopy. Am J Roentgenol. 1996;167(5):1247–53.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Sobol WT. High frequency X-ray generator basics. Med Phys. 2002;29(2):132–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Den Boer AD, de Feyter PJ, Hummel WA, Keane D, Roelandt JRTC. Reduction of radiation exposure while maintaining high-quality fluoroscopic images during interventional cardiology using novel X-ray tube technology extra beam filtering. Circulation. 1994;89:2710–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Gagne RM, Quinn PW. X-ray spectral considerations in fluoroscopy. In: Balter S, Shope TB, editors. RSNA categorical course in physics. Oak Brook: RSNA; 1995. p. 49–58.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Baldazzi G, Corazza I, Rossi PL, Testoni G, Bernardi T, Zannoli R. In vivo effectiveness of gadolinium filter for paediatric cardiac angiography in terms of image quality and radiation exposure. Phys Med. 2002;28:109–13.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Rossi PL, Mariselli M, Corazza I, Bianchini D, Biffi M, Martignani C, Zannoli R, Boriani G. Decrease in patient radiation exposure by a tantalum filter during electrophysiological procedures. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2009;32(Suppl 1):S109–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Geise RA. Fluoroscopy: recording of fluoroscopic images and automatic exposure control. Radiographics. 2001;21:227–36.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Lin PP. The operation logic of automatic dose control of fluoroscopy system in conjunction with spectral filters. Med Phys. 2007;34:3169–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Krohmer JS. Radiography and fluoroscopy, 1920 to the present. Radiographics. 1989;9:1129–53.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Schueler BA. General overview of fluoroscopic imaging. Radiographics. 2000;20:1115–26.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Wang J, Blackburn TJ. X-ray image intensifiers for fluoroscopy. Radiographics. 2000;20:1471–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Van Lysel MS. Fluoroscopy: optical coupling and the video system. Radiographics. 2000;20:1769–86.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Snoeren RM, ten Caat RB, Dillen BGM, Gieles P, van der Veen JCT. Solid state image sensor in X-ray television. Medicamundi. 1991;36:203–11.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Pooley RA, McKinney JM, Miller DA. Digital fluoroscopy. Radiographics. 2001;21:521–34.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Neitzel U. Recent technological developments and their influence. Radiat Prot Dosim. 2000;90(1–2):15–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Powell A, Katzen B. First experiences with a CCD system in interventional radiology: the Integris V5000. Medicamundi. 1999;43(4):38–44.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Cowen AR, Kengyelics SM, Davies AG. Solid-state flat-panel digital radiography detectors and their physical imaging characteristics. Clin Radiol. 2008;63:487–98.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Schiebel U, Conrads N, Jung N, Weibrecht M, Wieczorek H, Zaengel T. Fluoroscopic X-ray imaging with amorphous silicon thin-film arrays. SPIE Proc Phys Med Imaging. 1994;2162:129–40.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Antonuk LE, Yorkston J, Huang W, Siewerdsen JH, Boudry JM, El-Mohri Y. A real-time, flat-panel amorphous silicon digital X-ray imager. Radiographics. 1995;15:993–1000.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Chabbal J, Chaussat T, Ducourant T, Fritsch L, Michailos J, Spinnler V, Vieux G, Arques M, Hahm G, Hoheisel M, Horbaschek H, Schulz RF, Spahn MF. Amorphous silicon X-ray image sensor. SPIE Proc Phys Med Imaging. 1996;2708:499–510.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Colbeth RE, Allen MJ, Day DJ, Gilblom DL, Klaus Meijer-Brown ME, Pavkovich J, Seppi EJ, Shapiro EG. Characterisation of an amorphous silicon fluoroscopic imager. SPIE Proc Phys Med Imaging. 1997;3032:42–51.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Colbeth RE, Allen MJ, Day DJ, Gilblom DL, Harris R, Job ID, Klausmeier-Brown ME, Pavkovich JM, Seppi EJ, Shapiro EG, Wright MD, Yu J. Flat panel imaging system for fluoroscopy applications. SPIE Proc Phys Med Imaging. 1998;3336:376–87.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Bruijns TJ, Alving PL, Baker EL, Bury RF, Cowen AR, Jung N, Luijendijk HA, Meulenbrugge HJ, Stouten HJ. Technical and clinical results of an experimental flat dynamic (digital) X-ray image detector (FDXD) systems with real-time correction. SPIE Proc Phys Med Imaging. 1998;3336:33–44.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Bury RF, Cowen AR, Davies AG, Baker EL, Hawkridge P, Bruijns AJC, Reitsma H. Technical report: initial experiences with an experimental solid-state universal digital X-ray detector. Clin Radiol. 1998;53:923–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Bruijns AJC, Bury R, Busse F, Davies AG, Cowen AR, Rutten W, Reitsma H. Technical and clinical assessments of an experimental flat dynamic X-ray image detector system. SPIE Proc Phys Med Imaging. 1999;3659:324–35.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Jung N, Alving PL, Busse F, Conrads N, Meulenbrugge HM, Rutten W, Schiebel UW, Weibrecht M, Wieczorek HK. Dynamic X-ray imaging based on an amorphous silicon thin-film array. SPIE Proc Phys Med Imaging. 1998;3336:974–85.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Busse F, Rutten W, Sandkamp B, Alving PL, Bastiaens RJM, Ducourant T. Design and performance of a high quality cardiac flat panel detector. SPIE Proc Phys Med Imaging. 2002;4682:819–27.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Granfors PR, Aufrichtig R, Netel H, Brunst G, Boudry JM, Luo D, Albagli D, Tkaczyk JE. Performance of a flat cardiac detector. SPIE Proc Phys Med Imaging. 2001;4320:77–86.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Sivananthan UM, Moore J, Cowan JC, Pepper CB, Hunter S, Cowen AR, Davies AG, Kengyelics SM. A flat-detector cardiac cath lab system in clinical practice. Medicamundi. 2004;48:4–12.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Granfors PR, Aufrichtig R, Possin GE, Giambattista BW, Huang ZS, Liu J, Ma B. Performance of a 41 × 41 cm2 amorphous silicon flat panel X-ray detector designed for angiographic and R&F imaging applications. Med Phys. 2003;30:2715–26.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. Ducourant T, Couder D, Wirth T, Trochet JC, Bastiaens R, Bruijns T, Luijendijk HA, Sandkamp B, Davies AG, Didier D, Gonzalez A, Terraz S, Ruefenacht D, et al. Image quality of digital subtraction angiography using flat detector technology. SPIE Proc Phys Med Imaging. 2003;5030:203–14.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Bruijns AJC, Bastiaens R, Hoornaert B, von Reth E, Busse F, Heer VK, Ducourant T, Cowen AR, Davies AG, Terrier F. Image quality of a large-area dynamic flat detector: comparison with a state-of-the-art IITV system. SPIE Proc Phys Med Imaging. 2002;4682:332–43.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Colbeth RE, Boyce S, Fong R, Gray K, Harris R, Job ID, Mollov IP, Nepo B, Pakovich JM, Taie-Nobarie N, Seppi EJ, Shapiro EG, Wright MD, Webb C, Yu JM. 40 × 30 cm2 flat imager for angiography, R&F and cone-beam CT applications. SPIE Proc Phys Med Imaging. 2001;4320:94–102.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Choquette M, Demers Y, Shukri Z, Tousignant O, Aoki K, Honda M, Takahashi A, Tsukamoto A. Real time performance of a selenium based detector for fluoroscopy. SPIE Proc Phys Med Imaging. 2001;4320:501–8.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  65. Tousignant O, Demers Y, Laperriere L, Nishiki M, Nagai S, Tomisaki T, Takahashi A, Aoki K. Clinical performances of a 14″ × 14″ real time amorphous selenium flat panel detector. SPIE Proc Phys Med Imaging. 2003;5030:71–6.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  66. Asahina H. Selenium-based flat panel X-ray detector for digital fluoroscopy and radiography. Toshiba Med Rev. 1999;69:1–7.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Tousignant O, Demers Y, Lapierre L, Marcovici S. (2007). A-Se flat panel detectors for medical applications. Sensors applications symposium IEEE, San Diego, California USA.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Spahn M. Flat detectors and their clinical applications. Eur Radiol. 2005;15:1934–47.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Nikoloff EL. Survey of modern fluoroscopy imaging: flat-panel detectors versus image intensifiers and more. Radiographics. 2011;31:591–602.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Roos PG, Colbeth RE, Mollov I, Munro P, Pavkovich J, Seppi EJ, Shapiro EG, Tognina CA, Virshup GF, Yu M, Zentai G, Kaissi W, Matsinos A, Richters J, Riehm H. Multiple-gain-ranging readout method to extend the dynamic range of amorphous silicon flat-panel imagers. SPIE Proc Phys Med Imaging. 2004;5368:139–49.

    Google Scholar 

  71. Boyce SJ, Chawla A, Samei E. Physical evaluation of a high frame rate, extended dynamic range flat panel detector for real-time cone beam computed tomography applications. SPIE Proc Phys Med Imaging. 2005;5745:591–9.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Fahrig R, Wen Z, Ganguly A, DeCrescenzo G, Rowlands JA, Stevens GM, Saunders RF, Pelc NJ. Performance of a static-anode/flat-panel X-ray fluoroscopy system in a diagnostic strength magnetic field: truly hybrid X-ray/MR imaging system. Med Phys. 2005;32:1775–84.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  73. Achenbach S, Ropers D, Holle J, Muschol G, Daniel WG, Moshage W. In-plane coronary arterial motion velocity: measurement with electron-beam CT. Radiology. 2000;216:457–63.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  74. Zhao W, DeCresenzo G, Rowlands JA. Investigation of lag and ghosting in amorphous selenium flat-panel X-ray detectors. SPIE Proc Phys Med Imaging. 2003;4682:9–20.

    Google Scholar 

  75. Siewerdsen JH, Jaffray DA. A ghost story: spatio-temporal response characteristics of an indirect-detection flat-panel imager. Med Phys. 1999;26:1624–41.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  76. Overdick M, Solf T, Wischmann H-A. Temporal artefacts in flat dynamic X-ray detectors. SPIE Proc Phys Med Imaging. 2001;4320:47–58.

    Google Scholar 

  77. Ducourant T, Michel M, Vieux G, Peppler T, Trochet JC, Schulz RF, Bastiaens RJM, Busse F. Optimization of key building blocks for a large area radiographic and fluoroscopic dynamic X-ray detector based on a-Si:H/CsI:Tl flat panel technology. SPIE Proc Phys Med Imaging. 2000;3977:14–25.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Dainty JC, Shaw R. Image science. London: Academic Press; 1975.

    Google Scholar 

  79. Tognina CA, Mollov I, Yu JM, Webb C, Roos PG, Batts M, Trinh D, Fong R, Taie-Nobriae N, Nepo B, Job IS, Gray K, Boyce S, Colbeth RE. Design and performance of a new a-Si flat panel imager for use in cardiovascular and mobile C-arm imaging systems. SPIE Proc Phys Med Imaging. 2004;5368:648–56.

    Google Scholar 

  80. Davies AG, Cowen AR, Kengyelics SM, Bury RF, Bruijns TJ. Threshold contrast detail detectability measurement of the fluoroscopic image quality of a dynamic solid-state digital X-ray image detector. Med Phys. 2001;28:11–5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  81. Spekowius G, Boerner H, Eckenbach W, Quadflieg P, Laurenssen GJ. Simulation of the imaging performance of X-ray image intensifier TV camera chains. SPIE Proc Phys Med Imaging. 1995;2432:12–23.

    Google Scholar 

  82. Baker EL, Cowen AR, Kemner R, Bastiaens R. A physical evaluation of a CCD-based X-ray II fluorography system for cardiac applications. SPIE Proc Phys Med Imaging. 1998;3336:430–41.

    Google Scholar 

  83. Vano E, Geiger B, Schreiner A, Back C, Beissel J. Dynamic flat panel detector versus image intensifier in cardiac: dose and image quality. Phys Med Biol. 2005;50:5731–42.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  84. Davies AG, Cowen AR, Kengyelics SM, Moore J, Pepper C, Cowen C, Sivananthan UM. X-ray dose reduction in fluoroscopically guided electrophysiology procedures. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2006;29:262–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Prasan AM, Ison G, Rees DM. Radiation exposure during elective coronary angioplasty: the effect of flat-panel detection. Heart Lung Circ. 2008;17:215–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Trianni A, Bernardi G, Padovani R. Are new technologies always reducing patient doses in cardiac procedures. Radiat Prot Dosim. 2005;117:97–101.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  87. Tsapaki V, Kottou S, Kollaros N, Dafnomili P, Kyriakidis Z, Neofotistou V. Dose performance evaluation of charge coupled device and a flat-panel digital fluoroscopy system recently installed in an interventional cardiology laboratory. Radiat Prot Dosim. 2004;111(3):297–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. Davies AG, Cowen AR, Kengyelics SM, Moore J, Sivananthan MU. Do flat detector cardiac X-ray systems convey advantages over image intensifier-based systems? Study comparing X-ray dose and image quality. Eur Radiol. 2007;17:1787–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. Nikoloff EL, Lu ZF, Dutta A, So J, Balter S, Moses J. Influence of flat-panel fluoroscopic equipment variables on cardiac radiation doses. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2007;30:169–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Cowen AR. Image processing in digital radiography. Imaging. 1994;6:77–99.

    Google Scholar 

  91. Cowen AR, Hartley PJ, Workman A. The computer enhancement of digital grey-scale fluorography images. Br J Radiol. 1988;61(726):492–500.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  92. Aach T, Mayntz C, Rongen P, Schmitz G, Stegehuis H. Spatiotemporal multiscale vessel enhancement for coronary angiograms. SPIE Proc Phys Med Imaging. 2002;4684:1010–21.

    Google Scholar 

  93. Wu Z, Fang M, Qian J, Schramm H. A multi-scale adaptive method for blood vessel enhancement in X-ray angiography. SPIE Proc Phys Med Imaging. 1997;3036:326–35.

    Google Scholar 

  94. Koolen JJ, Van Het Veer M, Hanekamp CEE. Stentboost image enhancement: first clinical experience. Medicamundi. 2005;49(2):4–8.

    Google Scholar 

  95. Mishell JM, Vakharia KT, Ports TA, Yeghiazians Y, Michaels AD. Determination of adequate coronary stent expansion using stentboost, a novel fluoroscopic image processing technique. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2007;69:84–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  96. Sivananthan UM, Blackburn M, Cowan JC, Mclenachan J, Pepper CB, Hunter S, Moore J, Cowen AR, Davies AG, Kengyelics SM. Cardiac cath lab upgrade improves efficiency and reduces dose. Medicamundi. 2006;50(2):1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  97. Agostini P, Verheye S. Bifurcation stenting with dedicated biolimus-eluting stent: X-ray visual enhancement of the angiographic result with “StentBoost”. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2007;70:233–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  98. Eng MH, Klein AP, Wink O, Hansgen A, Carroll JD, Garcia JA. Enhanced stent visualization: a case series demonstrating practical applications during PCI. Int J Cardiol. 2010;141(1):e8–e16.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  99. Schoonenberg G, Florent R. Advanced visibility enhancement for stents and other devices: image processing aspects. Cardiol Clin. 2009;27:477–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  100. Fahrig R, Fox AJ, Lownie S, Holdsworth DW. Use of a C-arm system to generate true three-dimensional computed rotational angiograms: preliminary in vitro and in vivo results. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 1997;18:1507–14.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  101. Fahrig R, Moreau M, Holdsworth DW. Three dimensional computed tomographic reconstruction using C-arm mounted XRII: correction of image intensifier distortion. Med Phys. 1997;24:1097–106.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  102. Baba R, Konno Y, Ueda K, Ikeda S. Comparison of flat-panel detector and image intensifier detector for cone-beam CT. Comput Med Imaging Graph. 2002;6:153–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  103. Hirota S, Nakao N, Yamamoto S, Kobayashi K, Maeda H, Ishikura R, Miura K, Sakamoto K, Ueda K, Baba R. Cone-beam CT with flat-panel detector digital angiography system: early experiences in abdominal interventional procedures. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2006;29:1034–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  104. Hirai T, Korogi Y, Ono K, Yamura M, Uemara S, Yamashita Y. Pseudostenosis phenomenon at volume-rendered three-dimensional digital angiography of intracranial arteries: frequency, location and effect on image evaluation. Radiology. 2004;232:882–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  105. Kakeda S, Korogi Y, Ohnari N, Hatakeyama Y, Moriya J, Oda N, Nishino K, Miyamoto W. 3D digital subtraction angiography of intracranial aneurysms: comparison of flat panel detector with conventional IITV system using a vascular phantom. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2007;28:839–43.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  106. Sugahara T, Korogi Y, Nakashima K, Hamatake S, Honda S, Takahashi M. Comparison of 2D and 3D digital subtraction angiography in evaluation of intracranial aneurysms. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2002;23:1545–52.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  107. Hatakeyama Y, Kakeda S, Korogi Y, Ohnari N, Moriya J, Oda N, Nishino K, Miyamoto W. Intracranial 2D and 3D DSA with flat panel detector of the direct conversion type: initial experience. Eur Radiol. 2006;16:2594–602.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  108. Schueler BA, Kallmes DF, Cloft HJ. 3D cerebral angiography: radiation dose comparison with digital subtraction angiography. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2005;26:1898–901.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  109. Bridcut RR, Murphy E, Workman A, Flynn P, Winder RJ. Patient dose from 3D rotational neurovascular studies. Br J Radiol. 2007;80:362–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  110. Tsapaki V, Vano E, Mavrikou I, Neofotistou V, Gallego JJ, Fernandez JM, Santos E, Mendez J. Comparison of patient dose in two-dimensional carotid arteriography and three-dimensional rotational angiography. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2008;31:477–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  111. Gupta R, Cheung AC, Bartling SH, Lisauskas J, Grasruck M, Leidecker C, Schmidt B, Flohr T, Brady TJ. Flat-panel CT: fundamental principles, technology & applications. Radiographics. 2008;28:2009–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  112. Smyth JM, Sutton DG, Houston JG. Evaluation of the quality of CT-like images obtained using a commercial flat panel detector system. Biomed Imaging Interv J. 2006;2(4):e48.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  113. Wallace MJ, Kuo M, Glaiberman C, Binkert CA, Orh RC, Soulez G. Three dimensional C-arm cone-beam CT: applications in the interventional suite. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2008;19:799–813.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  114. Miracle AC, Mukherji SK. Conebeam CT of the head and neck, part 1: physical principles. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2009;30:1088–95.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  115. Orth RC, Wallace MJ, Kuo MD. C-arm cone-beam CT: general principles and technical considerations for use in interventional radiology. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2008;19:814–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  116. Struffert T, Eyopglu IY, Huttner HB, Engelhorn T, Doelken M, Saake M, Ganslandt O, Doerfler A. Clinical evaluation of flat-panel detector compared with multi-slice computed tomography in 65 patients with acute intracranial haemorrhage: initial results. J Neurosurg. 2010;113:901–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  117. Heran NS, Song JK, Mamba K, Smith W, Niimi Y, Berenstein A. The utility of DynaCT in neurovascular procedures. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2006;27:330–2.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  118. Kamran M, Nagaraja S, Byrne JV. C-arm flat detector computed tomography: the technique and its application in interventional neuro-radiology. Neuroradiology. 2010;52:319–27.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  119. Kyriakou Y, Richter DA, Kalendar WA. Neuroradiologic applications with routine C-arm flat panel detector CT: evaluation of patient dose measurements. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2008;29:1930–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  120. Soderman M, Babic D, Homan R, Andersson T. 3D roadmap in neuroangiography: technique and clinical interest. Neuroradiology. 2005;47:735–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  121. Wilhelm K, Babic D. 3D angiography in the interventional clinical routine. Medicamundi. 2006;50:24–31.

    Google Scholar 

  122. Turski PA, Stieghorst MF, Strother CM, Crummy AB, Lieberman RP, Mistretta CA. Digital subtraction angiography “road map”. Am J Roentgenol. 1982;139:1233–4.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  123. Racadio JM, Babic D, Homan R, Rampton JW, Patel MN, Racadio JM, Johnson ND. Live 3D guidance in the interventional radiology suite. Am J Roentgenol. 2007;189:357–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  124. Badano A. AAPM/RSNA tutorial on equipment selection: PACS equipment overview. Display systems. Radiographics. 2004;24(3):879–89.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  125. The Royal College of Radiologists. (2008). Picture archiving and communication systems (PACS) and guidelines on diagnostic display devices. This guidance is only available electronically from: www.rcr.ac.uk (Accessed March 2012).

  126. Drost MM. Evaluation of a recently developed 56″ monitor in CV interventions. Medicamundi. 2009;53(3):24–8.

    Google Scholar 

  127. Gurley JC. Flat detectors and new safety aspects of radiation safety. Cardiol Clin. 2009;27:385–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

► Section 11.12 of this chapter, titled «Technique Considerations,» was written by Peter Lanzer, MD, Health Care Center, Bitterfeld-Wolfen, Germany.

The author gratefully acknowledges many helpful discussions during the preparation of this chapter with his colleagues Amber Gislason and Andrew Davies (at the University of Leeds) and Professor Mohan Sivananthan (of the Yorkshire Heart Centre, LGI Leeds).

Amber Gislason kindly provided the X-ray spectra shown in ◘ Figs. 11.1 and 11.13. Mr. Davies and Professor Sivananthan kindly provided the images used in ◘ Figs. 11.20 and 11.21. The images used in ◘ Figs. 11.11, 11.15, 11.16, 11.18, 11.22, 11.23, and 11.24 are reproduced courtesy of Dr. Eric A. von Reth, senior director of Clinical Sciences at Philips Healthcare (Best, the Netherlands).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Medical Physics, LIGHT, University of Leeds, Clarendon Way, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK

    Arnold R. Cowen PhD

Authors
  1. Arnold R. Cowen PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Arnold R. Cowen PhD .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Middle German Heart Center and Health Care Center Bitterfeld-Wolfen, gGmbH, Bitterfeld-Wolfen, Germany

    Peter Lanzer

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Cowen, A.R. (2018). Cardiovascular X-ray Imaging: Physics, Equipment, and Techniques. In: Lanzer, P. (eds) Textbook of Catheter-Based Cardiovascular Interventions. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-55994-0_11

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-55994-0_11

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-55993-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-55994-0

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation