OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the feasibility of free-breathing coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) in adults using with a 320-detector multidetector CT (MDCT). METHODS: In 74 patients who underwent CCTA, 37 CCTA examinations were performed during free-breathing, and the remaining 37 CCTA examinations were produced with the standard breath-holding method. The quality scores for 16 segments of all coronary arteries were analysed and defined as: 1 (excellent), 2 (good), and 3 (poor). The signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), and effective radiation dose of each image were compared between the two methods. RESULTS: No significant differences were observed in the quality scores between the breath-holding and free-breathing methods (1.10 ± 0.31 vs. 1.12 ± 0.33; P = 0.443). The SNR and CNR were not significantly different between the two methods. The overall mean effective radiation dose revealed no significant difference between the two methods (P = 0.585). CONCLUSIONS: Free-breathing CCTA using 320-detector MDCT showed no significant difference in image quality compared with standard breath-holding CCTA. For patients with difficulties of breath-holding or non-negligible apnoea-related heart rate variability, free-breathing CCTA can be an alternative solution for coronary artery evaluation. KEY POINTS: • Cardiac CT is becoming widely used and some patients are inevitably breathless. • Multidetector CT (e.g. 320) offers new opportunities for the breathless patient. • Free breathing images yielded similar image quality to those obtained using breath-holding. • However, a possibility of higher radiation dose precludes its routine application.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the feasibility of free-breathing coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) in adults using with a 320-detector multidetector CT (MDCT). METHODS: In 74 patients who underwent CCTA, 37 CCTA examinations were performed during free-breathing, and the remaining 37 CCTA examinations were produced with the standard breath-holding method. The quality scores for 16 segments of all coronary arteries were analysed and defined as: 1 (excellent), 2 (good), and 3 (poor). The signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), and effective radiation dose of each image were compared between the two methods. RESULTS: No significant differences were observed in the quality scores between the breath-holding and free-breathing methods (1.10 ± 0.31 vs. 1.12 ± 0.33; P = 0.443). The SNR and CNR were not significantly different between the two methods. The overall mean effective radiation dose revealed no significant difference between the two methods (P = 0.585). CONCLUSIONS: Free-breathing CCTA using 320-detector MDCT showed no significant difference in image quality compared with standard breath-holding CCTA. For patients with difficulties of breath-holding or non-negligible apnoea-related heart rate variability, free-breathing CCTA can be an alternative solution for coronary artery evaluation. KEY POINTS: • Cardiac CT is becoming widely used and some patients are inevitably breathless. • Multidetector CT (e.g. 320) offers new opportunities for the breathless patient. • Free breathing images yielded similar image quality to those obtained using breath-holding. • However, a possibility of higher radiation dose precludes its routine application.
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: Thorsten R C Johnson; Konstantin Nikolaou; Bernd J Wintersperger; Andreas Knez; Peter Boekstegers; Maximilian F Reiser; Christoph R Becker Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2007-01 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Stephan Achenbach; Dieter Ropers; Axel Kuettner; Thomas Flohr; Bernd Ohnesorge; Herbert Bruder; Heike Theessen; Meri Karakaya; Werner G Daniel; Werner Bautz; Willi A Kalender; Katharina Anders Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2006-01-19 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: L Husmann; B A Herzog; A P Pazhenkottil; R R Buechel; R Nkoulou; J R Ghadri; I Valenta; I A Burger; O Gaemperli; C A Wyss; P A Kaufmann Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2011-09 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Udo Hoffmann; John T Nagurney; Fabian Moselewski; Antonio Pena; Maros Ferencik; Claudia U Chae; Ricardo C Cury; Javed Butler; Suhny Abbara; David F Brown; Alex Manini; John H Nichols; Stephan Achenbach; Thomas J Brady Journal: Circulation Date: 2006-10-30 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Frank J Rybicki; Hansel J Otero; Michael L Steigner; Gabriel Vorobiof; Leelakrishna Nallamshetty; Dimitrios Mitsouras; Hale Ersoy; Richard T Mather; Philip F Judy; Tianxi Cai; Karl Coyner; Kurt Schultz; Amanda G Whitmore; Marcelo F Di Carli Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2008-03-27 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Dennis T L Wong; Siang Y Soh; Brian S H Ko; James D Cameron; Marcus Crossett; Arthur Nasis; John Troupis; Ian T Meredith; Sujith K Seneviratne Journal: Cardiovasc Diagn Ther Date: 2014-08