Abstract
Purpose
To compare image quality and patient radiation dose in a group of patients who underwent
320-detector computed tomography coronary angiography performed with prospective electrocardiogram
(ECG) gating with image quality and radiation dose in a group of patients matched
for clinical features who underwent 320-detector computed tomographic (CT) coronary
angiography performed with retrospective ECG gating.
Materials and Methods
This study was approved by our institutional human research committee. All patients
had clinical indications for coronary computed tomography angiography (CTA). Two independent
reviewers separately scored coronary artery segment image quality for 480 cardiac
CT studies in prospective group and retrospective group (240 in each group). Reviewer
variability was calculated. Estimated effective radiation dose was compared for prospective
versus retrospective ECG gating.
Results
The two groups matched well for clinical characteristics and CT parameters. There
was good agreement for coronary artery segment image quality scores between the independent
reviewers (k=0.73). Of the 6408 coronary artery segments scored, there were no coronary artery
segments that could not be evaluated in each group. Image quality scores were not
significantly different (P>.05). Mean patient radiation dose was 76.50% lower for prospective gating (4.2 mSv)
than for retrospective gating (18.1 mSv) (P<.01).
Conclusion
Use of 320-detector CT coronary angiography performed with prospective ECG gating
has similar subjective image quality scores but 76.50% lower patient radiation dose
when compared with use of retrospective ECG gating.
Keywords
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to Clinical ImagingAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- Step-and-shoot data acquisition and reconstruction for cardiac x-ray computed tomography.Med Phys. 2006; 33: 4236-4248
- A reporting system on patients evaluated for coronary artery disease: report of the Ad Hoc Committee for Grading of Coronary Artery Disease, Council on Cardiovascular Surgery, American Heart Association.Circulation. 1975; 51: 5-40
- Noninvasive coronary angiography using 64-slice spiral computed tomography in an unselected patient collective: effect of heart rate, heart rate variability and coronary calcifications on image quality and diagnostic accuracy.Eur J Radiol. 2008; 66: 134-141
- Dualsource CT coronary angiography: image quality, mean heart rate, and heart rate variability.AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007; 189: 567-573
- European guidelines for multislice computed tomography: report EUR 16262 EN 2004.European Commission, Luxembourg2004
- Prospective versus retrospective ECG gating for 64-detector CT of the coronary arteries: comparison of image quality and patient radiation dose.Radiology. 2008; 248: 431-437
- Low-dose ECG-gated 64-slices helical CT angiography of the chest: evaluation of image quality in 105 patients.Eur Radiol. 2006; 16: 2137-2146
- Effective doses in subjects undergoing computed tomography cardiac imaging with the 256-multislice CT scanner.Eur J Radiol. 2007; 65: 442-448
- Initial clinical application on coronary images of 320-slice dynamic volume MDCT.Chin J Med Imaging Technol (Chin). 2009; 25: 127-130
- Initial evaluation of coronary images from 320-detector row computed tomography.Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2008; 24: 535-546
- Narrowing the phase window width in prospectively ECG-gated single heart beat 320-detector row coronary CT angiography.Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2009; 25: 85-90
Article info
Publication history
Published online: August 12, 2010
Accepted:
April 5,
2010
Received:
March 21,
2010
Identification
Copyright
© 2011 Elsevier Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
