Literature DB >> 21497209

Comparison of diagnostic accuracy and radiation dose between prospective triggering and retrospective gated coronary angiography by dual-source computed tomography.

Bin Lu1, Jin-Guo Lu, Ming-Li Sun, Zhi-Hui Hou, Xiong-Biao Chen, Xiang Tang, Run-Ze Wu, Laura Johnson, Shu-Bin Qiao, Yue-Jin Yang, Shi-Liang Jiang.   

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare the diagnostic accuracy and radiation dose of dual-source computed tomographic (DSCT) coronary angiography for assessment of coronary artery disease using prospective electrocardiographic triggering and retrospective electrocardiographically (ECG) gated spiral scans. One hundred sixteen patients who had undergone dual-source computed tomography and conventional coronary angiography were enrolled in this study. Fifty-four patients were scanned using retrospective ECG-gated protocols (group 1) and 62 patients using prospective ECG-triggered protocols (group 2). Diagnostic accuracy, image quality, and effective dose were compared between groups 1 and 2. Conventional coronary angiography was used as the reference standard. In total 1,709 (98.2%) coronary segments in the 116 patients were assessable with adequate image quality. Sensitivities and specificities of diagnosing coronary heart disease (≥50% stenosis) in a patient-based analysis of DSCT data were 93.3% and 88.9% in group 1 and 96.4% and 85.7% in group 2, respectively (p=0.973 and 0.761). In vessel-based analysis, sensitivities and specificities were 77.4% and 94.1% in group 1 and 79.6% and 92.3% in group 2 (p=0.983 and 0.985). Overall averaged image quality scores (using 1- to 4-point scale) in groups 1 and 2 were 3.3 ± 0.4 and 3.5 ± 0.9, respectively (p=0.268). Prevalence of good (score 3.0) and excellent (score 4.0) image qualities of coronary vessels were 95.4% in group 1 and 92.4% in group 2 (p = 0.861). Effective doses were 8.82 ± 3.50 mSv (range 3.92 to 15.36) in group 1 and 2.95 ± 1.39 mSv (range 0.99 to 6.06) in group 2 (p<0.001). In conclusion, DSCT prospective ECG-triggered coronary angiography has equivalent image quality and diagnostic value compared to that of retrospective ECG-gated scans. Radiation dose was significantly decreased using prospective electrocardiographic triggering.
Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21497209     DOI: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2010.12.038

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


  5 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

Review 2.  Coronary CT angiography with prospective ECG-triggering: an effective alternative to invasive coronary angiography.

Authors:  Zhonghua Sun
Journal:  Cardiovasc Diagn Ther       Date:  2012-03

3.  Comparison of image quality and radiation dose between prospectively ECG-triggered and retrospectively ECG-gated CT angiography: Establishing heart rate cut-off values in first-generation dual-source CT.

Authors:  Emre Ünal; A Elçin Yıldız; Ezgi Güler; Muşturay Karcaaltıncaba; Deniz Akata; Abidin Kılınçer; Eray Atlı; Melih Topçuoğlu; Tuncay Hazırolan
Journal:  Anatol J Cardiol       Date:  2015-01-07       Impact factor: 1.596

4.  Adaptive prospective ECG-triggered sequence coronary angiography in dual-source CT without heart rate control: Image quality and diagnostic performance.

Authors:  Chang-Jie Pan; Nong Qian; Tao Wang; Xiao-Qiang Tang; Yue-Jun Xue
Journal:  Exp Ther Med       Date:  2012-11-23       Impact factor: 2.447

5.  Improvement of Image Quality and Diagnostic Performance by an Innovative Motion-Correction Algorithm for Prospectively ECG Triggered Coronary CT Angiography.

Authors:  Zhen-Nan Li; Wei-Hua Yin; Bin Lu; Hong-Bing Yan; Chao-Wei Mu; Yang Gao; Zhi-Hui Hou; Zhi-Qiang Wang; Kun Liu; Ashley H Parinella; Jonathon A Leipsic
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-11-16       Impact factor: 3.240

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.