CT-Scan Dangers

Valve Replacement Forums

Help Support Valve Replacement Forums:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Superbob

Steely Resolve!
Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2005
Messages
8,481
Location
Coastal Carolina
Studies come and studies go, and I try not to get too spooked by any of them. But this one concerns me:

http://www.bestsyndication.com/?q=20091214_dangers_of_x_ray_ct_scans.htm

One CT-Scan = the radiation in 100 X-Rays? Yikes! I had a scan in October, and it was probably a good idea because an echo had indicated the presence of an aortic aneurysm. The CT-Scan did, too, even more definitely, BUT then my surgeon from '05 said, no, the techs down here were mistaking my replacement device (which he said was in good shape) for an aneurysm.

Anyway, my GP saw the scan and noted I had a touch of pneumonia. Had bad lingering cough at that time. So he wants me to have a follow-up CT-Scan in early January. I think he wants to rule out pulmonary fibrosis. He asked if I ever smoked (yes, but I quit 43 years ago!). I no longer have that nasty cough, so I am thinking the risks of the CT-Scan may be greater than any benefits.

Anyway, I will talk with him and express my concerns. Just wanted to vent, and also thought the latest research info about CATs might be of interest.

Seasonal cheers...:)
 
When I saw this report in the news yesterday, my first question was whether the new GE super-fast scanners reduce the X-ray dose. I had before and after scans of my aorta with one of these new machines. The scan of my thorax took all of 10 seconds - strikingly quicker than previous scanners. Anybody know if this reduces X-ray exposure or is it just delivered quicker?
 
Studies come and studies go . . . Anyway, my GP saw the scan and noted I had a touch of pneumonia. Had bad lingering cough at that time. So he wants me to have a follow-up CT-Scan in early January. I think he wants to rule out pulmonary fibrosis. He asked if I ever smoked (yes, but I quit 43 years ago!). I no longer have that nasty cough, so I am thinking the risks of the CT-Scan may be greater than any benefits.

Anyway, I will talk with him and express my concerns . . .
I think asking your doctor about the risk/benefit comparison is a good idea.

The CT info somehow jostled my memory of some articles I've seen (and you can quickly find them with a simple Web search) about doctors striking in various places, Canada and Israel for instance, during which strikes the DEATH RATES DECLINE, DRAMATICALLY :rolleyes: !
 
New SOMATOM® Definition 128 Siemens CT Scan

New SOMATOM® Definition 128 Siemens CT Scan

Up to 50 percent less radiation exposure
Even though the Siemens Definition CT uses two X-ray sources and offers twice the imaging power, it subjects patients to as much as 50 percent less radiation exposure than the most advanced single-source CT systems. The speed of the system gives physicians images in half the time while using special software that automatically reduces radiation to the lowest dose possible to the patient.

www.sw.org/web/patientsAndVisitors/iwcontent/public/radiology/en_us/html/radiology__128CTScan.html

There aren't a lot of these out there yet, but they offer another avenue we should seek out and insist upon. Scott & White is the 10th facility in the U.S. to get the new dual source CT from Siemens. The other sites include the Cleveland Clinic, UCLA and the Mayo Clinic.
 
All I know is, I got a ct scan with the new GE at UofM and I coulda swore I heard something like a very faint crackling like fried bacon - but only at certain intervals / points in the scan. Maybe I was just having a flash back...

I'm of the opinion that it's intensity that is riskier than duration. I've googled enough to be pretty confident about that.


I'm not getting another ct scan unless it's pretty clear that an MRI will take too long for the circumstances. Hopefully that never happens.
 
What is even MORE scary,to Me, is This reminds me of the article Ross posted a week ago (FDA warning: CT perfusion scans) about at least 250 patients getting large amounts excess radiation.
Even tho the FDA said it happened at 1 center (and more then 1 brand of scanner so it isn't the scanners fault, which makes me feel a little better), they also said
"This situation may reflect more widespread problems with CT quality assurance programs and may not be isolated to this particular facility or this imaging procedure (CT brain perfusion).
If patient doses are higher than the expected level, but not high enough to produce obvious signs of radiation injury, the problem may go undetected and unreported, putting patients at increased risk for long-term radiation effects" http://www.valvereplacement.com/forums/showthread.php?t=33803

[UPDATED 12/07/2009] The FDA, working with state and local health authorities, has identified at least 50 additional patients who were exposed to excess radiation of up to eight times the expected level during their CT perfusion scans. These cases so far involve more than one manufacturer of CT scanners. Some of these patients reported hair loss or skin redness following their scans. High doses of radiation can cause cataracts and increase the risk of some forms of cancer.

when you follow the link it to the FDA News release (from 12/07)
The FDA issued an initial safety notification in October after learning of 206 patients who had been exposed to excess radiation at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles over an 18-month period.
Since then, the FDA, working with state and local health authorities, has identified at least 50 additional patients who were exposed to excess radiation of up to eight times the expected level during their CT perfusion scans. These cases so far involve more than one manufacturer of CT scanners. *The FDA has also received reports of possible excess radiation from other states*(sorry I don't remember how to bold).

The reason I mentioned what hospital it was, is because I was reading an article about it early today that is from Oct http://www.chicagotribune.com/health/la-me-cedars15-2009oct15,0,5835979.story
when the problem was first discoverred that said
"Cedars-Sinai Medical Center did not tell all 206 patients who received radiation overdoses during CT scans of the hospital's error, according to the accounts of four people who said they only came to understand what happened to them through news reports.

In a statement last week, hospital officials said all the patients had been contacted "in the interest of keeping them informed."

But in interviews with The Times, four people said that although they were called and questioned by Cedars-Sinai radiologists last month, the doctors neither acknowledged any error nor explained that the patients had been exposed to eight times more radiation than necessary.

"The word 'radiation' never came out of his mouth," said Larry Biggles, who described a brief call he got in late September, a year after he arrived at the emergency room and a scan revealed that he had suffered a stroke.

He said that Dr. Barry D. Pressman, chairman of the imaging department, explained that he was following up on the scan and wanted to know whether Biggles had suffered headaches, blurred vision or hair loss"

I would be FURIOUS. and BTW the ONLY reason they caught on, was because of a patient losing hair.

"Cedars-Sinai has said the overdoses stemmed from an error made when the hospital reconfigured a scanner to improve doctors' ability to see blood flow in the brain.
The faulty scans began in February 2008 -- after the computerized protocols were modified -- and continued until this August when the hospital discovered the error after learning of a patient's hair loss"
 

Latest posts

Back
Top