Literature DB >> 15215552

Coronary artery bypass grafts: ECG-gated multi-detector row CT angiography--influence of image reconstruction interval on graft visibility.

Jürgen K Willmann1, Dominik Weishaupt, Richard Kobza, Francis R Verdun, Burkhardt Seifert, Borut Marincek, Thomas Boehm.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To evaluate the influence of different reconstruction intervals of retrospectively electrocardiographically (ECG)-gated multi-detector row computed tomographic (CT) angiography on image quality of different segments of various types of coronary artery bypass grafts.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty consecutive patients with 62 grafts underwent retrospectively ECG-gated four-channel multi-detector row CT angiography and conventional coronary angiography. Raw helical CT data were reconstructed at 0%-90% of the cardiac cycle in increments of 10%. Each graft was separated into three segments (proximal segment, graft body, and distal anastomosis). Three graft types were identified according to site of distal anastomosis. Two readers assessed image quality of segments and graft types. Effective radiation dose was calculated.
RESULTS: Best image quality of all segments was obtained at a reconstruction interval of 50%-70% of the cardiac cycle. Image quality of the proximal segment did not vary significantly with different reconstruction intervals (analysis of variance, P =.8), whereas image quality of the graft body and distal anastomosis changed significantly with varying reconstruction intervals (P <.001). Distal anastomosis and body of types 1 and 2 grafts were best seen at 60%-70% of the cardiac cycle, whereas distal anastomosis and body of type 3 grafts were best visualized at 50%. Accuracy of CT angiography for detection of graft patency was 94% for reader 1 and 95% for reader 2. Effective dose for CT was 11.4 mSv for both men and women. Mean effective dose for angiography was 2.1 mSv for men and women.
CONCLUSION: Optimal selection of reconstruction interval improves image quality of the graft body and of distal anastomosis in particular. Copyright RSNA, 2004

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15215552     DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2322030788

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  11 in total

Review 1.  Multislice CT coronary angiography: how to do it and what is the current clinical performance?

Authors:  Filippo Cademartiri; Joanne D Schuijf; Nico R Mollet; Patrizia Malagutti; Giuseppe Runza; Jeroen J Bax; Pim J de Feyter
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2005-11       Impact factor: 9.236

2.  Non-invasive coronary angiography using multislice computed tomography.

Authors:  Jeffrey M Schussler; Paul A Grayburn
Journal:  Heart       Date:  2005-12-30       Impact factor: 5.994

3.  MSCT labelling for pre-operative planning in cardiac resynchronization therapy.

Authors:  Kristell Rioual; Edurne Unanua; Soizic Laguitton; Mireille Garreau; Dominique Boulmier; Pascal Haigron; Christophe Leclercq; Jean-Louis Coatrieux
Journal:  Comput Med Imaging Graph       Date:  2005-09       Impact factor: 4.790

4.  Evaluation of temporal windows for coronary artery bypass graft imaging with 64-slice CT.

Authors:  Lotus Desbiolles; Sebastian Leschka; André Plass; Hans Scheffel; Lars Husmann; Oliver Gaemperli; Elisabeth Garzoli; Borut Marincek; Philipp A Kaufmann; Hatem Alkadhi
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2007-07-17       Impact factor: 5.315

5.  64 Slice multi-detector row cardiac CT.

Authors:  Harpreet K Pannu; Pamela T Johnson; Elliot K Fishman
Journal:  Emerg Radiol       Date:  2008-10-22

6.  Prospective versus retrospective ECG-gated 64-detector coronary CT angiography for evaluation of coronary artery bypass graft patency: comparison of image quality, radiation dose and diagnostic accuracy.

Authors:  Jae Hwan Lee; Eun Ju Chun; Sang Il Choi; Mani Vembar; Cheong Lim; Kay-Hyun Park; Dong-Ju Choi
Journal:  Int J Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2011-06-17       Impact factor: 2.357

7.  Does 16-MDCT angiography scanning direction affect image quality of coronary artery bypass grafts and the native coronary arteries?

Authors:  Tuncay Hazirolan; Baris Turkbey; Musturay Karcaaltincaba; Deniz Akata; Levent Sahiner; Kudret Aytemir; M Ali Oto; Ferhun Balkanci; Aytekin Besim
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2006-05-13       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 8.  Coronary artery bypass grafts and MDCT imaging: what to know and what to look for.

Authors:  Riccardo Marano; Carlo Liguori; Pierluigi Rinaldi; Maria Luigia Storto; Marco Angelo Politi; Giancarlo Savino; Lorenzo Bonomo
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2007-09-15       Impact factor: 5.315

9.  Midterm follow-up of patients receiving radial artery as coronary artery bypass grafts using 16-detector-row CT coronary angiography.

Authors:  F Crusco; A Antoniella; V Papa; R Menzano; D Di Lazzaro; G Di Manici; T Ragni; A Giovagnoni
Journal:  Radiol Med       Date:  2007-06-11       Impact factor: 6.313

10.  Non-invasive assessment of coronary artery bypass graft patency using 16-slice computed tomography angiography.

Authors:  Emma S Houslay; Tristan Lawton; Anshuman Sengupta; Neal G Uren; Graham McKillop; David E Newby
Journal:  J Cardiothorac Surg       Date:  2007-06-05       Impact factor: 1.637

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.