BACKGROUND: Prospectively gated coronary computed tomographic angiography (CCTA) with dual-source CT allows substantial reduction of radiation exposure but requires prospective single-phase selection and assessment of likelihood of adequate image quality. OBJECTIVE: We developed and tested the model for predicting success of prospectively gated CCTA. METHODS: Retrospectively gated CCTA was acquired with dual-source CT in 162 patients. Two cardiologists assessed by consensus whether diagnostic quality images could have been obtained in a single predefined phase, 70% of R-R interval (70P), thereby identifying patients in whom a prospectively gated scan at 70P would have been successful. Logistic regression models were built with and without a coronary calcium scan. The obtained criteria were applied on 42 additional patients. RESULTS: By logistic regression, heart rate before CCTA of >or=70 beats/min, maximal heart rate variation before CCTA of >or=10 beats/min, coronary calcium score >or= 400 U, and body mass index (in kg/m(2)) >or= 30 were independent predictors of unsuccessful prospectively gated CCTA using 70P. Excluding coronary calcium score from the model, these same variables in addition to age > 65 years were found to be predictors of unsuccessful prospectively gated CCTA. Applying this model to 42 additional patients, using prospective gating, only 5 segments in 4 patients were nondiagnostic. Mean radiation dose for prospectively gated CCTA was 2.2 +/- 0.8 mSv. CONCLUSION: Prospectively gated CCTA with dual-source CT can be successfully implemented with consideration of prescan heart rate, heart rate variability, body mass index, and coronary calcium score.
BACKGROUND: Prospectively gated coronary computed tomographic angiography (CCTA) with dual-source CT allows substantial reduction of radiation exposure but requires prospective single-phase selection and assessment of likelihood of adequate image quality. OBJECTIVE: We developed and tested the model for predicting success of prospectively gated CCTA. METHODS: Retrospectively gated CCTA was acquired with dual-source CT in 162 patients. Two cardiologists assessed by consensus whether diagnostic quality images could have been obtained in a single predefined phase, 70% of R-R interval (70P), thereby identifying patients in whom a prospectively gated scan at 70P would have been successful. Logistic regression models were built with and without a coronary calcium scan. The obtained criteria were applied on 42 additional patients. RESULTS: By logistic regression, heart rate before CCTA of >or=70 beats/min, maximal heart rate variation before CCTA of >or=10 beats/min, coronary calcium score >or= 400 U, and body mass index (in kg/m(2)) >or= 30 were independent predictors of unsuccessful prospectively gated CCTA using 70P. Excluding coronary calcium score from the model, these same variables in addition to age > 65 years were found to be predictors of unsuccessful prospectively gated CCTA. Applying this model to 42 additional patients, using prospective gating, only 5 segments in 4 patients were nondiagnostic. Mean radiation dose for prospectively gated CCTA was 2.2 +/- 0.8 mSv. CONCLUSION: Prospectively gated CCTA with dual-source CT can be successfully implemented with consideration of prescan heart rate, heart rate variability, body mass index, and coronary calcium score.
Authors: Rine Nakanishi; Heidi Gransar; Alan Rozanski; Jamal S Rana; Victor Y Cheng; Louise E J Thomson; Romalisa Miranda-Peats; Damini Dey; Sean W Hayes; John D Friedman; James K Min; Daniel S Berman Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2016-02 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Hans Scheffel; Paul Stolzmann; Hatem Alkadhi; Naim Azemaj; André Plass; Stephan Baumueller; Lotus Desbiolles; Sebastian Leschka; Sebastian Kozerke; Volkmar Falk; Peter Boesiger; Christophe Wyss; Borut Marincek; Olivio F Donati Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2010-02-10 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Eric D Manheimer; M Robert Peters; Steven D Wolff; Mehreen A Qureshi; Prashanth Atluri; Gregory D N Pearson; Andrew J Einstein Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2011-04-01 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Ambarish Gopal; Song S Mao; Daniel Karlsberg; Emily Young; Joshua Waggoner; Naser Ahmadi; Raveen S Pal; John Leal; Ronald P Karlsberg; Matthew J Budoff Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2008-12-03 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Piotr J Slomka; Victor Y Cheng; Damini Dey; Jonghye Woo; Amit Ramesh; Serge Van Kriekinge; Yasuzuki Suzuki; Yaron Elad; Ronald Karlsberg; Daniel S Berman; Guido Germano Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2009-09-16 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Andrew J Einstein; Steven D Wolff; Eric D Manheimer; James Thompson; Sylvia Terry; Seth Uretsky; Adalbert Pilip; M Robert Peters Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2009-09-26 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Martijn A M den Dekker; Kristof de Smet; Geertruida H de Bock; Rene A Tio; Matthijs Oudkerk; Rozemarijn Vliegenthart Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2012-07-15 Impact factor: 5.315