OBJECTIVES: To compare the diagnostic performance and radiation exposure of 128-slice dual-source CT coronary angiography (CTCA) protocols to detect coronary stenosis with more than 50 % lumen obstruction. METHODS: We prospectively included 459 symptomatic patients referred for CTCA. Patients were randomized between high-pitch spiral vs. narrow-window sequential CTCA protocols (heart rate below 65 bpm, group A), or between wide-window sequential vs. retrospective spiral protocols (heart rate above 65 bpm, group B). Diagnostic performance of CTCA was compared with quantitative coronary angiography in 267 patients. RESULTS: In group A (231 patients, 146 men, mean heart rate 58 ± 7 bpm), high-pitch spiral CTCA yielded a lower per-segment sensitivity compared to sequential CTCA (89 % vs. 97 %, P = 0.01). Specificity, PPV and NPV were comparable (95 %, 62 %, 99 % vs. 96 %, 73 %, 100 %, P > 0.05) but radiation dose was lower (1.16 ± 0.60 vs. 3.82 ± 1.65 mSv, P < 0.001). In group B (228 patients, 132 men, mean heart rate 75 ± 11 bpm), per-segment sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV were comparable (94 %, 95 %, 67 %, 99 % vs. 92 %, 95 %, 66 %, 99 %, P > 0.05). Radiation dose of sequential CTCA was lower compared to retrospective CTCA (6.12 ± 2.58 vs. 8.13 ± 4.52 mSv, P < 0.001). Diagnostic performance was comparable in both groups. CONCLUSION:Sequential CTCA should be used in patients with regular heart rates using 128-slice dual-source CT, providing optimal diagnostic accuracy with as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA) radiation dose.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: To compare the diagnostic performance and radiation exposure of 128-slice dual-source CT coronary angiography (CTCA) protocols to detect coronary stenosis with more than 50 % lumen obstruction. METHODS: We prospectively included 459 symptomatic patients referred for CTCA. Patients were randomized between high-pitch spiral vs. narrow-window sequential CTCA protocols (heart rate below 65 bpm, group A), or between wide-window sequential vs. retrospective spiral protocols (heart rate above 65 bpm, group B). Diagnostic performance of CTCA was compared with quantitative coronary angiography in 267 patients. RESULTS: In group A (231 patients, 146 men, mean heart rate 58 ± 7 bpm), high-pitch spiral CTCA yielded a lower per-segment sensitivity compared to sequential CTCA (89 % vs. 97 %, P = 0.01). Specificity, PPV and NPV were comparable (95 %, 62 %, 99 % vs. 96 %, 73 %, 100 %, P > 0.05) but radiation dose was lower (1.16 ± 0.60 vs. 3.82 ± 1.65 mSv, P < 0.001). In group B (228 patients, 132 men, mean heart rate 75 ± 11 bpm), per-segment sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV were comparable (94 %, 95 %, 67 %, 99 % vs. 92 %, 95 %, 66 %, 99 %, P > 0.05). Radiation dose of sequential CTCA was lower compared to retrospective CTCA (6.12 ± 2.58 vs. 8.13 ± 4.52 mSv, P < 0.001). Diagnostic performance was comparable in both groups. CONCLUSION: Sequential CTCA should be used in patients with regular heart rates using 128-slice dual-source CT, providing optimal diagnostic accuracy with as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA) radiation dose.
Authors: Allen J Taylor; Manuel Cerqueira; John McB Hodgson; Daniel Mark; James Min; Patrick O'Gara; Geoffrey D Rubin; Christopher M Kramer; Daniel Berman; Alan Brown; Farooq A Chaudhry; Ricardo C Cury; Milind Y Desai; Andrew J Einstein; Antoinette S Gomes; Robert Harrington; Udo Hoffmann; Rahul Khare; John Lesser; Christopher McGann; Alan Rosenberg; Robert Schwartz; Marc Shelton; Gerald W Smetana; Sidney C Smith Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2010-11-23 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: W G Austen; J E Edwards; R L Frye; G G Gensini; V L Gott; L S Griffith; D C McGoon; M L Murphy; B B Roe Journal: Circulation Date: 1975-04 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Stephan Achenbach; Tobias Goroll; Martin Seltmann; Tobias Pflederer; Katharina Anders; Dieter Ropers; Werner G Daniel; Michael Uder; Michael Lell; Mohamed Marwan Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2011-04
Authors: Piet K Vanhoenacker; Majanka H Heijenbrok-Kal; Ruben Van Heste; Isabel Decramer; Lieven R Van Hoe; William Wijns; M G Myriam Hunink Journal: Radiology Date: 2007-08 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Annick C Weustink; Nico R Mollet; Lisan A Neefjes; W Bob Meijboom; Tjebbe W Galema; Carlos A van Mieghem; Stamatis Kyrzopoulous; Rick Neoh Eu; Koen Nieman; Filippo Cademartiri; Robert-Jan van Geuns; Eric Boersma; Gabriel P Krestin; Pim J de Feyter Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2010-05-18 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Dirk Ertel; Michael M Lell; Frank Harig; Thomas Flohr; Bernhard Schmidt; Willi A Kalender Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2009-06-30 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Arthur Nasis; Brian S Ko; Michael C Leung; Paul R Antonis; Dee Nandurkar; Dennis T Wong; Leo Kyi; James D Cameron; John M Troupis; Ian T Meredith; Sujith K Seneviratne Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2013-02-21 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: Long Jiang Zhang; Li Qi; Carlo N De Cecco; Chang Sheng Zhou; James V Spearman; U Joseph Schoepf; Guang Ming Lu Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) Date: 2014-11 Impact factor: 1.889