OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was to compare diagnostic accuracy of MDCT coronary angiography in a population of patients with mild heart rhythm irregularities before and after editing the ECG. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Thirty-eight patients who underwent MDCT coronary angiography and conventional coronary angiography were enrolled in the study. The inclusion criterion was the presence of mild heart rhythm irregularities (i.e., premature beats; atrial fibrillation; mistriggering; or low heart rate, defined as 40 beats per minute or less) during the scan. All patients underwent MDCT with the following parameters: 16 detectors; collimation, 0.75 mm; gantry rotation time, 375 msec; 120 kV; and effective milliampere-second setting, 500-600. Images were reconstructed in two settings: before ECG editing and after ECG editing (i.e., arbitrary modification of temporal windows within the cardiac cycle at the site of mild heart rhythm irregularities). Data sets were scored for the presence of significant stenoses (> or = 50% lumen reduction) in coronary segments > or = 2 mm diameter. The results of the two groups were compared with a McNemar test, and a p value of less than 0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: The sensitivity, specificity, and negative and positive predictive values of MDCT coronary angiography for the detection of significant stenoses before and after ECG editing were 63% (41/65) and 92% (78/85); 97% (251/260) and 96% (305/317); 87% (62/71) and 87% (81/93); 91% (251/275) and 97% (305/313), respectively (p < 0.05). The proportion of nonassessable segments was reduced from 17% (70/416) before ECG editing to 2% (10/416) after. CONCLUSION: ECG editing significantly improves diagnostic accuracy in a selected population of patients with mild heart rate irregularities.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was to compare diagnostic accuracy of MDCT coronary angiography in a population of patients with mild heart rhythm irregularities before and after editing the ECG. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Thirty-eight patients who underwent MDCT coronary angiography and conventional coronary angiography were enrolled in the study. The inclusion criterion was the presence of mild heart rhythm irregularities (i.e., premature beats; atrial fibrillation; mistriggering; or low heart rate, defined as 40 beats per minute or less) during the scan. All patients underwent MDCT with the following parameters: 16 detectors; collimation, 0.75 mm; gantry rotation time, 375 msec; 120 kV; and effective milliampere-second setting, 500-600. Images were reconstructed in two settings: before ECG editing and after ECG editing (i.e., arbitrary modification of temporal windows within the cardiac cycle at the site of mild heart rhythm irregularities). Data sets were scored for the presence of significant stenoses (> or = 50% lumen reduction) in coronary segments > or = 2 mm diameter. The results of the two groups were compared with a McNemar test, and a p value of less than 0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: The sensitivity, specificity, and negative and positive predictive values of MDCT coronary angiography for the detection of significant stenoses before and after ECG editing were 63% (41/65) and 92% (78/85); 97% (251/260) and 96% (305/317); 87% (62/71) and 87% (81/93); 91% (251/275) and 97% (305/313), respectively (p < 0.05). The proportion of nonassessable segments was reduced from 17% (70/416) before ECG editing to 2% (10/416) after. CONCLUSION: ECG editing significantly improves diagnostic accuracy in a selected population of patients with mild heart rate irregularities.
Authors: Jie Zhang; Joel G Fletcher; W Scott Harmsen; Philip A Araoz; Eric E Williamson; Andrew N Primak; Cynthia H McCollough Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2008-01 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Marc Dewey; Andrea L Vavere; Armin Arbab-Zadeh; Julie M Miller; Leonardo Sara; Christopher Cox; Ilan Gottlieb; Kunihiro Yoshioka; Narinder Paul; John Hoe; Albert de Roos; Albert C Lardo; Joao A Lima; Melvin E Clouse Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2010-01 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Wolfgang Eicher; Thomas Kau; Martin Niedermayer; Birgit Senft; Maria Sinzig; Birgit Strozyk; Klaus Armin Hausegger Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2010-09-11 Impact factor: 2.357