OBJECTIVE: We aimed to determine predictors of image quality in consecutive patients who underwent coronary computed tomography (CT) for the evaluation of acute chest pain. METHOD AND MATERIALS: We prospectively enrolled patients who presented with chest pain to the emergency department. All subjects underwent contrast-enhanced 64-slice coronary multi-detector CT. Two experienced readers determined overall image quality on a per-patient basis and the prevalence and characteristics of non-evaluable coronary segments on a per-segment basis. RESULTS: Among 378 subjects (143 women, age: 52.9+/-11.8 years), 345 (91%) had acceptable overall image quality, while 33 (9%) had poor image quality or were unreadable. In adjusted analysis, patients with diabetes, hypertension and a higher heart rate during the scan were more likely to have exams graded as poor or unreadable (odds ratio [OR]: 2.94, p=0.02; OR: 2.62, p=0.03; OR: 1.43, p=0.02; respectively). Of 6253 coronary segments, 257 (4%) were non-evaluable, most due to severe calcification in combination with motion (35%). The presence of non-evaluable coronary segments was associated with age (OR: 1.08 annually, 95%-confidence interval [CI]: 1.05-1.12, p<0.001), baseline heart rate (OR: 1.35 per 10 beats/min, 95%-CI: 1.11-1.67, p=0.003), diabetes, hypertension, and history of coronary artery disease (OR: 4.43, 95%-CI: 1.93-10.17, p<0.001; OR: 2.27, 95-CI: 1.01-4.73, p=0.03; OR: 5.12, 95%-CI: 2.0-13.06, p<0.001; respectively). CONCLUSION: Coronary CT permits acceptable image quality in more than 90% of patients with chest pain. Patients with multiple risk factors are more likely to have impaired image quality or non-evaluable coronary segments. These patients may require careful patient preparation and optimization of CT scanning protocols. Copyright (c) 2010 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.
OBJECTIVE: We aimed to determine predictors of image quality in consecutive patients who underwent coronary computed tomography (CT) for the evaluation of acute chest pain. METHOD AND MATERIALS: We prospectively enrolled patients who presented with chest pain to the emergency department. All subjects underwent contrast-enhanced 64-slice coronary multi-detector CT. Two experienced readers determined overall image quality on a per-patient basis and the prevalence and characteristics of non-evaluable coronary segments on a per-segment basis. RESULTS: Among 378 subjects (143 women, age: 52.9+/-11.8 years), 345 (91%) had acceptable overall image quality, while 33 (9%) had poor image quality or were unreadable. In adjusted analysis, patients with diabetes, hypertension and a higher heart rate during the scan were more likely to have exams graded as poor or unreadable (odds ratio [OR]: 2.94, p=0.02; OR: 2.62, p=0.03; OR: 1.43, p=0.02; respectively). Of 6253 coronary segments, 257 (4%) were non-evaluable, most due to severe calcification in combination with motion (35%). The presence of non-evaluable coronary segments was associated with age (OR: 1.08 annually, 95%-confidence interval [CI]: 1.05-1.12, p<0.001), baseline heart rate (OR: 1.35 per 10 beats/min, 95%-CI: 1.11-1.67, p=0.003), diabetes, hypertension, and history of coronary artery disease (OR: 4.43, 95%-CI: 1.93-10.17, p<0.001; OR: 2.27, 95-CI: 1.01-4.73, p=0.03; OR: 5.12, 95%-CI: 2.0-13.06, p<0.001; respectively). CONCLUSION: Coronary CT permits acceptable image quality in more than 90% of patients with chest pain. Patients with multiple risk factors are more likely to have impaired image quality or non-evaluable coronary segments. These patients may require careful patient preparation and optimization of CT scanning protocols. Copyright (c) 2010 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.
Authors: Bernd J Wintersperger; Konstantin Nikolaou; Franz von Ziegler; Thorsten Johnson; Carsten Rist; Alexander Leber; Thomas Flohr; Andreas Knez; Maximilian F Reiser; Christoph R Becker Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2006-05 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: W G Austen; J E Edwards; R L Frye; G G Gensini; V L Gott; L S Griffith; D C McGoon; M L Murphy; B B Roe Journal: Circulation Date: 1975-04 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Filippo Cademartiri; Nico R Mollet; Giuseppe Runza; Nico Bruining; Ronald Hamers; Pamela Somers; Michiel Knaapen; Stefan Verheye; Massimo Midiri; Gabriel P Krestin; Pim J de Feyter Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2005-03-05 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Maros Ferencik; Cesar H Nomura; Pal Maurovich-Horvat; Udo Hoffmann; Antonio J Pena; Ricardo C Cury; Suhny Abbara; Koen Nieman; Umaima Fatima; Stephan Achenbach; Thomas J Brady Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2006-01-24 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: Alexander W Leber; Andreas Knez; Franz von Ziegler; Alexander Becker; Konstantin Nikolaou; Stephan Paul; Bernd Wintersperger; Maximilian Reiser; Christoph R Becker; Gerhard Steinbeck; Peter Boekstegers Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2005-07-05 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Lars Husmann; Hans Scheffel; Ines Valenta; Tiziano Schepis; Oliver Gaemperli; Ursina Aepli; Patrick T Siegrist; Sebastian Leschka; Lotus Desbiolles; Paul Stolzmann; Borut Marincek; Hatem Alkadhi; Philipp A Kaufmann Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2008-03-28 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Simon A Mahler; Brian C Hiestand; Jamaji Nwanaji-Enwerem; David C Goff; Gregory L Burke; L Douglas Case; Bret Nicks; Chadwick D Miller Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2013-03 Impact factor: 3.451
Authors: Fabian Bamberg; Wieland H Sommer; Jan C Schenzle; Christoph R Becker; Konstantin Nikolaou; Maximilian F Reiser; Thorsten R C Johnson Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2009-12-23 Impact factor: 5.315