RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: To compare the image quality of electron beam tomography (EBT) and multislice spiral CT (MSCT) for coronary artery visualization. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two groups of 30 patients without coronary stenoses were studied by MSCT (4 x 1 mm collimation) or EBT (3 mm slice thickness). Contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), overall length of the visualized arteries and vessel length free of motion artifacts were measured. RESULTS: Length of visualized arteries was equal in MSCT and EBT. In EBT, longer segments were depicted free of motion artifacts (MSCT: 73%, EBT: 92% of visualized length, P< 0.001) and CNR was significantly higher than in MSCT (15.4 vs. 9.0; P< 0.001). In both modalities, vessel diameters correlated closely to quantitative coronary angiography. CONCLUSIONS: EBT and MSCT permit reliable coronary artery visualization and measurement of vessel diameters. For the used scan protocol, MSCT images had a lower CNR and were more frequently affected by motion.
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: To compare the image quality of electron beam tomography (EBT) and multislice spiral CT (MSCT) for coronary artery visualization. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two groups of 30 patients without coronary stenoses were studied by MSCT (4 x 1 mm collimation) or EBT (3 mm slice thickness). Contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), overall length of the visualized arteries and vessel length free of motion artifacts were measured. RESULTS: Length of visualized arteries was equal in MSCT and EBT. In EBT, longer segments were depicted free of motion artifacts (MSCT: 73%, EBT: 92% of visualized length, P< 0.001) and CNR was significantly higher than in MSCT (15.4 vs. 9.0; P< 0.001). In both modalities, vessel diameters correlated closely to quantitative coronary angiography. CONCLUSIONS: EBT and MSCT permit reliable coronary artery visualization and measurement of vessel diameters. For the used scan protocol, MSCT images had a lower CNR and were more frequently affected by motion.
Authors: F Tatsugami; M Matsuki; G Nakai; Y Inada; S Kanazawa; Y Takeda; H Morita; H Takada; S Yoshikawa; K Fukumura; Y Narumi Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2012-01-17 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: B M Gramer; D Muenzel; V Leber; A-K von Thaden; H Feussner; A Schneider; M Vembar; N Soni; E J Rummeny; A M Huber Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2012-07-03 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Songshou Mao; Jerold S Shinbane; Ronald J Oudiz; Ferdinand Flores; Alex Chau; Stephen Liu; Shaojun Wang; Yanlin Gao; Matthew J Budoff Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2005-07-23 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Thorsten R C Johnson; Konstantin Nikolaou; Bernd J Wintersperger; Alexander W Leber; Franz von Ziegler; Carsten Rist; Sonja Buhmann; Andreas Knez; Maximilian F Reiser; Christoph R Becker Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2006-05-13 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Carsten Rist; T R Johnson; A Becker; A W Leber; A Huber; S Busch; C R Becker; M F Reiser; K Nikolaou Journal: Radiologe Date: 2007-04 Impact factor: 0.635
Authors: Bernhard A Herzog; Lars Husmann; Ines Valenta; Fabian M Tay; Nina Burkhard; Oliver Gaemperli; Christophe A Wyss; Ulf Landmesser; Philipp A Kaufmann Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2009-04-19 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: W Wuest; K Anders; A Schuhbaeck; M S May; S Gauss; M Marwan; M Arnold; S Ensminger; G Muschiol; W G Daniel; M Uder; S Achenbach Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2011-08-17 Impact factor: 5.315