PURPOSE: The aim of our study was to assess the influence of heart rate on the selection of the optimal reconstruction window with 40-slice multidetector-row computed tomography (40-MDCT) coronary angiography. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We studied 170 patients (114 men, age 60+/-11.3 years) with suspected or known coronary artery disease with 40-MDCT coronary angiography. Patients [mean heart rate (HR) 62.9+/-9.3 bpm, range 42-94 bpm] were clustered in two groups (group A: HR <or=65 bpm; group B: HR >65 bpm). Multiphase reconstruction data sets were obtained with a retrospective electrocardiogram (ECG)-gated 40-MDCT coronary angiography scan from 0% to 95% every 5% of the R-R interval. Two radiologists in consensus evaluated the best data sets for diagnostic purposes. RESULTS: In group A, the optimal reconstruction windows were at 70% (55/110, 71/110 and 69/110 for the right coronary artery, left anterior descending and the left circumflex, respectively) and 75% (26/110, 28/110 and 28/110, respectively) of the R-R interval. In group B, a wide range of reconstruction windows were employed, both in the end-systolic phase at 40% (32/60, 18/60 and 17/60, for the right coronary artery, left anterior descending and circumflex, respectively) and diastolic phases at 70% (12/60, 22/60 and 19/60, respectively). Six scans were excluded due to severe respiratory artefacts. CONCLUSIONS: Optimal position of the image reconstruction window relative to the cardiac cycle is significantly influenced by the heart rate during scanning. Diastolic reconstruction phases often allowed an optimal assessment in group A. Reconstruction phases from 30% to 45% are advisable for higher heart rates.
PURPOSE: The aim of our study was to assess the influence of heart rate on the selection of the optimal reconstruction window with 40-slice multidetector-row computed tomography (40-MDCT) coronary angiography. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We studied 170 patients (114 men, age 60+/-11.3 years) with suspected or known coronary artery disease with 40-MDCT coronary angiography. Patients [mean heart rate (HR) 62.9+/-9.3 bpm, range 42-94 bpm] were clustered in two groups (group A: HR <or=65 bpm; group B: HR >65 bpm). Multiphase reconstruction data sets were obtained with a retrospective electrocardiogram (ECG)-gated 40-MDCT coronary angiography scan from 0% to 95% every 5% of the R-R interval. Two radiologists in consensus evaluated the best data sets for diagnostic purposes. RESULTS: In group A, the optimal reconstruction windows were at 70% (55/110, 71/110 and 69/110 for the right coronary artery, left anterior descending and the left circumflex, respectively) and 75% (26/110, 28/110 and 28/110, respectively) of the R-R interval. In group B, a wide range of reconstruction windows were employed, both in the end-systolic phase at 40% (32/60, 18/60 and 17/60, for the right coronary artery, left anterior descending and circumflex, respectively) and diastolic phases at 70% (12/60, 22/60 and 19/60, respectively). Six scans were excluded due to severe respiratory artefacts. CONCLUSIONS: Optimal position of the image reconstruction window relative to the cardiac cycle is significantly influenced by the heart rate during scanning. Diastolic reconstruction phases often allowed an optimal assessment in group A. Reconstruction phases from 30% to 45% are advisable for higher heart rates.
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: Sebastian Leschka; Lars Husmann; Lotus M Desbiolles; Oliver Gaemperli; Tiziano Schepis; Pascal Koepfli; Thomas Boehm; Borut Marincek; Philipp A Kaufmann; Hatem Alkadhi Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2006-05-13 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Nico R Mollet; Filippo Cademartiri; Carlos A G van Mieghem; Giuseppe Runza; Eugène P McFadden; Timo Baks; Patrick W Serruys; Gabriel P Krestin; Pim J de Feyter Journal: Circulation Date: 2005-10-03 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Francesca Pugliese; Nico R A Mollet; Giuseppe Runza; Carlos van Mieghem; Willem B Meijboom; Patrizia Malagutti; Timo Baks; Gabriel P Krestin; Pim J deFeyter; Filippo Cademartiri Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2005-11-16 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: M Fusaro; N Faccioli; E Calderon; F Santini; A Palumbo; G Morana; F Cademartiri; R Pozzi Mucelli Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2009-09-30 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: C N De Cecco; V Buffa; S Fedeli; A Vallone; R Ruopoli; M Luzietti; V Miele; M Maurizi Enrici; F Musumeci; V David Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2010-10-27 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: R Malagò; M D'Onofrio; I Baglio; S Brunelli; D Tavella; F Beltrame; P Benussi; R Pozzi Mucelli Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2009-08-07 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: E Maffei; G Messalli; A Palumbo; C Martini; S Seitun; A Aldrovandi; A Cuttone; E Emiliano; R Malagò; A Weustink; N Mollet; F Cademartiri Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2010-03-09 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: G Runza; K Fattouch; F Cademartiri; A La Fata; L Damiani; L La Grutta; C Tedeschi; A Basile; N R Mollet; T V Bartolotta; G Pisani; G Ruvolo; M Midiri; R Lagalla Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2009-05-30 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: Ludovico La Grutta; Sabina La Grutta; Massimo Galia; Giuseppe Lo Piccolo; Giovanni Gentile; Giuseppe La Tona; Maria Stella Epifanio; Erica Maffei; Filippo Cademartiri; Rosa Lo Baido; Roberto Lagalla; Massimo Midiri Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2013-11-26 Impact factor: 3.469