Literature DB >> 20599018

Effect of a standardized radiation dose reduction protocol on diagnostic accuracy of coronary computed tomographic angiography.

Troy M LaBounty1, Jonathon Leipsic, G B John Mancini, Brett Heilbron, Smita Patel, Ella A Kazerooni, Baskaran Sundaram, Fay Y Lin, Allison Dunning, Adam J Saltzman, Giora Weisz, Jonathan W Weinsaft, Jin-Ho Choi, Sunaina Koduru, James K Min.   

Abstract

Although numerous strategies for radiation dose decrease in coronary computed tomographic angiography are effective, their combined impact on diagnostic performance is not known. We therefore assessed the effect of a standardized coronary computed tomographic angiographic protocol on diagnostic accuracy. We evaluated 80 consecutive patients from 3 sites with coronary computed tomographic angiography and quantitative coronary angiography. All sites initially used nonstandardized protocols; 2 sites then initiated a standardized protocol, and 1 site continued its nonstandardized protocol as a time-overlapping control. Two blinded readers interpreted coronary computed tomographic angiographic studies; a third obtained consensus. A blinded core laboratory performed quantitative coronary angiography. Each segment was graded as <50% or > or =50% diameter stenosis. Compared to those using nonstandardized protocols (n = 35), studies using standardized protocols (n = 45) had a trend to increased use of prospective gating (p = 0.09), lower voltage (p <0.01), decreased current (p <0.01), and shorter scan length (p <0.01). Median (interquartile range) radiation dose decreased from 5.7 mSv (4.0 to 10.8) to 2.0 mSv (1.3 to 3.4, p <0.001). There were no significant differences in sensitivity (100%, 20 of 20, vs 100%, 18 of 18, p = 1.0), specificity (93%, 14 of 15, vs 85%, 23 of 27, p = 0.61), or accuracy (97%, 34 of 35, vs 91%, 41 of 45, p = 0.27) by patient; sensitivity (83%, 33 of 40, vs 83%, 25 of 30, p = 0.93), specificity (92%, 86 of 93, vs 92%, 134 of 146, p = 0.85), or accuracy (89%, 119 of 133, vs 90%, 159 of 176, p = 0.80) by artery; or sensitivity (80%, 44 of 55, vs 72%, 26 of 36, p = 0.74), specificity (94%, 332 of 353, vs 94%, 499 of 531, p = 0.96), or accuracy (92%, 376 of 408, vs 93%, 525 of 567, p = 0.80) by segment. In conclusion, a standardized dose-decrease protocol for coronary computed tomographic angiography decreases radiation dose without affecting diagnostic performance. Copyright (c) 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20599018     DOI: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2010.02.038

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Cardiol        ISSN: 0002-9149            Impact factor:   2.778


  11 in total

Review 1.  Diagnostic value of coronary CT angiography with prospective ECG-gating in the diagnosis of coronary artery disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Zhonghua Sun; Kwan-Hoong Ng
Journal:  Int J Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2012-01-04       Impact factor: 2.357

2.  The potential role for the use of cardiac computed tomography angiography for the acute chest pain patient in the emergency department.

Authors:  Sean R Wilson; James K Min
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2011-02       Impact factor: 5.952

3.  Reduced iodine load with CT coronary angiography using dual-energy imaging: a prospective randomized trial compared with standard coronary CT angiography.

Authors:  Rekha Raju; Angus G Thompson; Kristy Lee; Bruce Precious; Tae-Hyun Yang; Adam Berger; Carolyn Taylor; Brett Heilbron; Giang Nguyen; James Earls; James Min; Patricia Carrascosa; Darra Murphy; Cameron Hague; Jonathon A Leipsic
Journal:  J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr       Date:  2014-06-17

Review 4.  SCCT guidelines on radiation dose and dose-optimization strategies in cardiovascular CT.

Authors:  Sandra S Halliburton; Suhny Abbara; Marcus Y Chen; Ralph Gentry; Mahadevappa Mahesh; Gilbert L Raff; Leslee J Shaw; Jörg Hausleiter
Journal:  J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr       Date:  2011 Jul-Aug

5.  Methodological quality of diagnostic accuracy studies on non-invasive coronary CT angiography: influence of QUADAS (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies included in systematic reviews) items on sensitivity and specificity.

Authors:  Sabine Schueler; Stefan Walther; Georg M Schuetz; Peter Schlattmann; Marc Dewey
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2013-01-16       Impact factor: 5.315

6.  Efficiency and safety of coronary CT angiography compared to standard care in the evaluation of patients with acute chest pain: a Canadian study.

Authors:  Elena Peña; Fraser Rubens; Ian Stiell; Rebecca Peterson; Joao Inacio; Carole Dennie
Journal:  Emerg Radiol       Date:  2016-05-24

7.  Evolution of coronary computed tomography radiation dose reduction at a tertiary referral center.

Authors:  Brian Burns Ghoshhajra; Leif-Christopher Engel; Gyöngyi Petra Major; Alexander Goehler; Tust Techasith; Daniel Verdini; Synho Do; Bob Liu; Xinhua Li; Michiel Sala; Mi Sung Kim; Ron Blankstein; Priyanka Prakash; Manavjot S Sidhu; Erin Corsini; Dahlia Banerji; David Wu; Suhny Abbara; Quynh Truong; Thomas J Brady; Udo Hoffmann; Manudeep Kalra
Journal:  Am J Med       Date:  2012-06-15       Impact factor: 4.965

Review 8.  Radiation exposure from imaging tests: is there an increased cancer risk?

Authors:  Patricia K Nguyen; Joseph C Wu
Journal:  Expert Rev Cardiovasc Ther       Date:  2011-02

Review 9.  Coronary CT angiography: current status and continuing challenges.

Authors:  Z Sun; G H Choo; K H Ng
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2012-01-17       Impact factor: 3.039

Review 10.  Use of 3x2 tables with an intention to diagnose approach to assess clinical performance of diagnostic tests: meta-analytical evaluation of coronary CT angiography studies.

Authors:  Georg M Schuetz; Peter Schlattmann; Marc Dewey
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2012-10-24
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.