OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the position of the optimal systolic and diastolic reconstruction intervals for coronary CT angiography using dual-source CT. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: In 90 patients, coronary dual-source CT angiography was performed without beta-blocking agents. Data were reconstructed in 5% steps throughout the R-R interval. Two independent readers selected optimal systolic and diastolic reconstruction windows for each major coronary vessel--the right coronary artery (RCA), left anterior descending artery (LAD), and left circumflex artery (LCX)--using a 3D viewer and volume-rendering displays. The motion score for each vessel was graded from 1 (no motion artifacts) to 5 (severe motion artifacts over entire vessel). RESULTS: The average heart rate of all patients was 68.7 beats per minute (bpm) (range, 43-119 bpm). The median optimal systolic reconstruction windows were at 35%, 30%, and 35% for the RCA, LAD, and LCX, respectively. The median optimal diastolic reconstruction window was at 75% for all vessels. The mean motion scores (+/- SD) in the systolic reconstructions were 1.9 +/- 0.8 (RCA), 1.7 +/- 0.5 (LAD), and 2.0 +/- 0.6 (LCX). The mean motion scores for the diastolic reconstructions were 1.7 +/- 0.9, 1.5 +/- 0.6, and 1.6 +/- 0.7, respectively. In patients with a heart rate of < 70 bpm, motion scores were significantly lower in diastole versus systole (1.3 +/- 0.4 and 1.9 +/- 0.5, respectively; p < 0.01). In most patients with a heart rate of > 80 bpm, motion scores were lower in systolic than in diastolic reconstructions (2.1 +/- 0.6 and 2.6 +/- 0.8, respectively; p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Using dual-source CT, the overall optimal reconstruction window is at 75% of the R-R interval in patients with low or intermediate heart rates. In patients with heart rates of > 80 bpm, systolic reconstructions often yield superior image quality compared with diastolic reconstructions.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the position of the optimal systolic and diastolic reconstruction intervals for coronary CT angiography using dual-source CT. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: In 90 patients, coronary dual-source CT angiography was performed without beta-blocking agents. Data were reconstructed in 5% steps throughout the R-R interval. Two independent readers selected optimal systolic and diastolic reconstruction windows for each major coronary vessel--the right coronary artery (RCA), left anterior descending artery (LAD), and left circumflex artery (LCX)--using a 3D viewer and volume-rendering displays. The motion score for each vessel was graded from 1 (no motion artifacts) to 5 (severe motion artifacts over entire vessel). RESULTS: The average heart rate of all patients was 68.7 beats per minute (bpm) (range, 43-119 bpm). The median optimal systolic reconstruction windows were at 35%, 30%, and 35% for the RCA, LAD, and LCX, respectively. The median optimal diastolic reconstruction window was at 75% for all vessels. The mean motion scores (+/- SD) in the systolic reconstructions were 1.9 +/- 0.8 (RCA), 1.7 +/- 0.5 (LAD), and 2.0 +/- 0.6 (LCX). The mean motion scores for the diastolic reconstructions were 1.7 +/- 0.9, 1.5 +/- 0.6, and 1.6 +/- 0.7, respectively. In patients with a heart rate of < 70 bpm, motion scores were significantly lower in diastole versus systole (1.3 +/- 0.4 and 1.9 +/- 0.5, respectively; p < 0.01). In most patients with a heart rate of > 80 bpm, motion scores were lower in systolic than in diastolic reconstructions (2.1 +/- 0.6 and 2.6 +/- 0.8, respectively; p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Using dual-source CT, the overall optimal reconstruction window is at 75% of the R-R interval in patients with low or intermediate heart rates. In patients with heart rates of > 80 bpm, systolic reconstructions often yield superior image quality compared with diastolic reconstructions.
Authors: Gorka Bastarrika; Jordi Broncano; María Arraiza; Pedro M Azcárate; Isabel Simon-Yarza; Beltrán G Levy Praschker; Jesús C Pueyo; José L Zubieta; Gregorio Rabago Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2011-04-12 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Carson A Wick; James H McClellan; Chesnal D Arepalli; William F Auffermann; Travis S Henry; Faisal Khosa; Adam M Coy; Srini Tridandapani Journal: Med Phys Date: 2015-02 Impact factor: 4.071