RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Cardiac computed tomographic angiography algorithms emphasize radiation reduction while maintaining diagnostic image quality (IQ). The aim of this study was to evaluate IQ and interreader variability using prospective electrocardiographically triggered high-pitch spiral cardiac computed tomographic angiography (FLASH-CT) compared to retrospective electrocardiographic gating (RETRO-CT) for coronary artery disease evaluation in a patient population including overweight and obese individuals. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seventy patients (24 women; mean age, 60 years) matched for gender, age, body mass index (27.4 ± 5.5 kg/m(2)), and calcium score (184 ± 328) underwent cardiac computed tomographic angiography, 35 with FLASH-CT (Definition Flash) and 35 with RETRO-CT (Somatom Definition). Images were reconstructed using standard protocols and least motion phase for RETRO-CT acquisitions. Two independent, blinded readers evaluated the coronary arteries using an 18-segment model, grading IQ on a 5-point, Likert-type scale and coronary stenosis on a 5-point semiquantitative and binary scale. RESULTS: Effective radiation dose (1.50 vs 17.3 mSv, P < .0001) and mean heart rate (58 vs 62 beats/min, P < .05) were significantly lower for FLASH-CT compared to RETRO-CT. Seven hundred forty segments (> 1.5 mm) were evaluated. There was no significant difference between FLASH-CT and RETRO-CT scans in overall per-segment IQ (3.11 ± 0.75 vs 3.10 ± 0.82, P = .94). FLASH-CT had noninferior IQ relative to RETRO-CT (95% confidence interval, -0.25 to 0.26). There was no significant difference in interreader variability in diagnosis between FLASH-CT and RETRO-CT for all coronary segments (77.5% vs 78.2%, P = .83). CONCLUSIONS: FLASH-CT is an acceptable coronary computed tomographic angiographic method for reducing radiation dose without compromising IQ for a patient population including overweight and obese individuals.
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Cardiac computed tomographic angiography algorithms emphasize radiation reduction while maintaining diagnostic image quality (IQ). The aim of this study was to evaluate IQ and interreader variability using prospective electrocardiographically triggered high-pitch spiral cardiac computed tomographic angiography (FLASH-CT) compared to retrospective electrocardiographic gating (RETRO-CT) for coronary artery disease evaluation in a patient population including overweight and obese individuals. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seventy patients (24 women; mean age, 60 years) matched for gender, age, body mass index (27.4 ± 5.5 kg/m(2)), and calcium score (184 ± 328) underwent cardiac computed tomographic angiography, 35 with FLASH-CT (Definition Flash) and 35 with RETRO-CT (Somatom Definition). Images were reconstructed using standard protocols and least motion phase for RETRO-CT acquisitions. Two independent, blinded readers evaluated the coronary arteries using an 18-segment model, grading IQ on a 5-point, Likert-type scale and coronary stenosis on a 5-point semiquantitative and binary scale. RESULTS: Effective radiation dose (1.50 vs 17.3 mSv, P < .0001) and mean heart rate (58 vs 62 beats/min, P < .05) were significantly lower for FLASH-CT compared to RETRO-CT. Seven hundred forty segments (> 1.5 mm) were evaluated. There was no significant difference between FLASH-CT and RETRO-CT scans in overall per-segment IQ (3.11 ± 0.75 vs 3.10 ± 0.82, P = .94). FLASH-CT had noninferior IQ relative to RETRO-CT (95% confidence interval, -0.25 to 0.26). There was no significant difference in interreader variability in diagnosis between FLASH-CT and RETRO-CT for all coronary segments (77.5% vs 78.2%, P = .83). CONCLUSIONS: FLASH-CT is an acceptable coronary computed tomographic angiographic method for reducing radiation dose without compromising IQ for a patient population including overweight and obese individuals.
Authors: Lorenzo Mannelli; Lawrence MacDonald; Marcello Mancini; Marina Ferguson; William P Shuman; Monica Ragucci; Serena Monti; Dongxiang Xu; Chun Yuan; Lee M Mitsumori Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2014-12-24 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Long Jiang Zhang; Li Qi; Jing Wang; Chun Xiang Tang; Chang Sheng Zhou; Xue Man Ji; James V Spearman; Carlo Nicola De Cecco; Felix G Meinel; U Joseph Schoepf; Guang Ming Lu Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2014-04-16 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Kjell Bogaard; Friso M van der Zant; Remco J J Knol; Sjoerd Reinders; Marije M G Krul; Albert C van Rossum; Paul Knaapen; Jan H Cornel Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2014-08-14 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Cathérine Gebhard; Tobias A Fuchs; Michael Fiechter; Julia Stehli; Barbara E Stähli; Oliver Gaemperli; Philipp A Kaufmann Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2013-04-28 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Filippo Cademartiri; Ernesto Di Cesare; Marco Francone; Giovanni Ballerini; Guido Ligabue; Erica Maffei; Andrea Romagnoli; Giovanni Maria Argiolas; Vincenzo Russo; Vitaliano Buffa; Riccardo Marano; Maria Guzzetta; Manuel Belgrano; Iacopo Carbone; Luca Macarini; Claudia Borghi; Paolo Di Renzi; Vicenzo Barile; Lucia Patriarca Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2015-02-21 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: Lorenzo Mannelli; Lee M Mitsumori; Marina Ferguson; Dongxiang Xu; Baocheng Chu; Kelley R Branch; William P Shuman; Chun Yuan Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2012-08-21 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Gianluca Pontone; Daniele Andreini; Erika Bertella; Andrea Baggiano; Saima Mushtaq; Monica Loguercio; Chiara Segurini; Edoardo Conte; Virginia Beltrama; Andrea Annoni; Alberto Formenti; Maria Petullà; Andrea I Guaricci; Piero Montorsi; Daniela Trabattoni; Antonio L Bartorelli; Mauro Pepi Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2015-05-09 Impact factor: 5.315