OBJECTIVE: To compare image quality, diagnostic accuracy and radiation dose of prospective and retrospective electrocardiogram (ECG) gated dual source computed tomography (DSCT) for the evaluation of the coronary stent, using conventional coronary angiography (CA) as a standard reference. DESIGN, SETTING AND PATIENTS: Sixty patients (heart rates ≤ 70 bpm) with previous stent implantation who were scheduled for CA were divided in two groups, receiving either prospective or retrospective ECG gated DSCT separately. Two reviewers scored coronary stent image quality and evaluated stent lumen. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in image quality between the two groups. In the prospective group, there were 86.4% (51/59) stents with interpretable images, in the retrospective group, there were 87.5% (49/56) stents with interpretable images. Image quality was not influenced by age, body mass index or heart rate in either group, but heart rate variability had a weak impact on the image quality of the prospective group. Image noise was higher in the prospective group, but this difference reached statistical significance only by using a smooth kernel reconstruction. Per-stent based sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive value were 100%, 84.1%, 68.2%, and 100%, respectively, in the prospective CT angiography group and 94.4%, 86.8%, 77.3%, and 97.1%, respectively, in the retrospective CT angiography group. There was a significant difference in the effective radiation dose between the two groups, mean effective dose in the prospective and retrospective group was 2.2 ± 0.5 mSv (1.5-3.2 mSv) and 14.6 ± 3.3 mSv (10.0-20.4 mSv) (p < .001) respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with retrospective CT angiography, prospective CT angiography has a similar performance in assessing coronary stent patency, but a lower effective dose in selected patients with regular heart rates ≤ 70 bpm.
OBJECTIVE: To compare image quality, diagnostic accuracy and radiation dose of prospective and retrospective electrocardiogram (ECG) gated dual source computed tomography (DSCT) for the evaluation of the coronary stent, using conventional coronary angiography (CA) as a standard reference. DESIGN, SETTING AND PATIENTS: Sixty patients (heart rates ≤ 70 bpm) with previous stent implantation who were scheduled for CA were divided in two groups, receiving either prospective or retrospective ECG gated DSCT separately. Two reviewers scored coronary stent image quality and evaluated stent lumen. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in image quality between the two groups. In the prospective group, there were 86.4% (51/59) stents with interpretable images, in the retrospective group, there were 87.5% (49/56) stents with interpretable images. Image quality was not influenced by age, body mass index or heart rate in either group, but heart rate variability had a weak impact on the image quality of the prospective group. Image noise was higher in the prospective group, but this difference reached statistical significance only by using a smooth kernel reconstruction. Per-stent based sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive value were 100%, 84.1%, 68.2%, and 100%, respectively, in the prospective CT angiography group and 94.4%, 86.8%, 77.3%, and 97.1%, respectively, in the retrospective CT angiography group. There was a significant difference in the effective radiation dose between the two groups, mean effective dose in the prospective and retrospective group was 2.2 ± 0.5 mSv (1.5-3.2 mSv) and 14.6 ± 3.3 mSv (10.0-20.4 mSv) (p < .001) respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with retrospective CT angiography, prospective CT angiography has a similar performance in assessing coronary stent patency, but a lower effective dose in selected patients with regular heart rates ≤ 70 bpm.
Authors: Ji Won Lee; Chang Won Kim; Han Cheol Lee; Ming-Ting Wu; Lee Hwangbo; Ki Seok Choo; June Hong Kim; Ki-Nam Lee; Jin You Kim; Yeon Joo Jeong Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2015-05-29 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Christian A Barrera; Hansel J Otero; Ammie M White; David Saul; David M Biko Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2019-01-25 Impact factor: 2.357