PURPOSE: To compare the diagnostic performance and radiation doses of dual-source and 64-section computed tomographic (CT) coronary angiography for the diagnosis of significant coronary stenoses in patients with heart rates of 65 beats/min or less. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study had local ethics committee approval; all patients gave written informed consent. Two hundred patients with heart rates of 65 beats/min or less were enrolled; 100 underwent dual-source and 100 underwent 64-section CT coronary angiography. Two blinded observers independently assessed image quality of all coronary segments by using a four-point scale and searched for significant (>50%) stenoses in each segment. Catheter angiography was used as the reference standard. Image noise was measured in the ascending aorta. Radiation doses were calculated. RESULTS: No significant differences were found regarding sex, age, body weight, cardiovascular risk profile, prevalence of stenosis, mean and variability of heart rate, Agatston score, and image noise (all P > .1) between patients in both CT coronary angiography groups. No significant difference was found in the rate of nonassessable coronary segments between dual-source (1.0%, 14 of 1405) and 64-section CT coronary angiography (1.8%, 25 of 1387; P = .08). Motion artifacts occurred significantly more often in 64-section (21 of 25) versus dual-source (five of 14, P = .004) CT coronary angiography. Segment-based accuracy and specificity were significantly higher for dual-source versus 64-section CT coronary angiography. There was no significant difference in accuracy parameters at the per-vessel and per-patient analyses. No significant difference (P = .13) was found between the effective doses of dual-source (mean +/- standard deviation, 10.9 mSv +/- 1.1) and 64-section CT (10.4 mSv +/- 1.7) coronary angiography. CONCLUSION: In patients with heart rates of 65 beats/min or less, the higher temporal resolution of dual-source CT coronary angiography results in improved accuracy and specificity for the diagnosis of significant stenoses on a per-segment level at a similar radiation dose, but provides a comparable diagnostic accuracy on a patient-based level as does 64-section coronary angiography.
PURPOSE: To compare the diagnostic performance and radiation doses of dual-source and 64-section computed tomographic (CT) coronary angiography for the diagnosis of significant coronary stenoses in patients with heart rates of 65 beats/min or less. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study had local ethics committee approval; all patients gave written informed consent. Two hundred patients with heart rates of 65 beats/min or less were enrolled; 100 underwent dual-source and 100 underwent 64-section CT coronary angiography. Two blinded observers independently assessed image quality of all coronary segments by using a four-point scale and searched for significant (>50%) stenoses in each segment. Catheter angiography was used as the reference standard. Image noise was measured in the ascending aorta. Radiation doses were calculated. RESULTS: No significant differences were found regarding sex, age, body weight, cardiovascular risk profile, prevalence of stenosis, mean and variability of heart rate, Agatston score, and image noise (all P > .1) between patients in both CT coronary angiography groups. No significant difference was found in the rate of nonassessable coronary segments between dual-source (1.0%, 14 of 1405) and 64-section CT coronary angiography (1.8%, 25 of 1387; P = .08). Motion artifacts occurred significantly more often in 64-section (21 of 25) versus dual-source (five of 14, P = .004) CT coronary angiography. Segment-based accuracy and specificity were significantly higher for dual-source versus 64-section CT coronary angiography. There was no significant difference in accuracy parameters at the per-vessel and per-patient analyses. No significant difference (P = .13) was found between the effective doses of dual-source (mean +/- standard deviation, 10.9 mSv +/- 1.1) and 64-section CT (10.4 mSv +/- 1.7) coronary angiography. CONCLUSION: In patients with heart rates of 65 beats/min or less, the higher temporal resolution of dual-source CT coronary angiography results in improved accuracy and specificity for the diagnosis of significant stenoses on a per-segment level at a similar radiation dose, but provides a comparable diagnostic accuracy on a patient-based level as does 64-section coronary angiography.
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: 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: Jin Ho Hwang; Sung Min Ko; Hong Gee Roh; Meong Gun Song; Je Kyoun Shin; Hyun Kun Chee; Joon Suk Kim Journal: Korean J Radiol Date: 2010-08-27 Impact factor: 3.500