OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the accuracy of low-dose coronary CTA with iterative reconstruction (IR) in the diagnosis of coronary artery disease (CAD) in patients with suspected CAD. METHODS: Ninety-six patients with suspected CAD underwent low-dose prospective electrocardiogram-gated coronary CTA, with images reconstructed using IR. Image quality (IQ) of coronary segments were graded on a 4-point scale (4, excellent; 1, non-diagnostic). With invasive coronary angiography (ICA) considered the "gold standard", the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) and accuracy of coronary CTA were calculated on segment-, vessel- and patient-based levels. The patient data were divided into two groups (Agatston scores of ≥ 400 and <400). The differences in diagnostic performance between the two groups were tested. RESULTS: Diagnostic image quality was found in 98.1 % (1,232/1,256) of segments. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV and accuracy were 90.8 %, 95.3 %, 81.8 %, 97.8 % and 94.3 % (segment-based) and 97.2 %, 83.3 %, 94.6 %, 90.9 % and 93.8 % (patient-based). Significant differences between the two groups were seen in specificity, PPV and accuracy (92.1 % vs. 97.9 %, 76.0 % vs. 86.7 %, 91.7 % vs. 96.6 %, P < 0.05; segment-based). The average effective dose was 1.30 ± 0.15 mSv. CONCLUSION: Low-dose prospective coronary CTA with IR can acquire satisfactory image quality and show high diagnostic accuracy in patients with suspected CAD; however, blooming continues to pose a challenge in severely calcified segments. KEY POINTS: • Coronary artery disease (CAD) is increasingly investigated using coronary CTA. • The iterative reconstruction (IR) algorithm is promising in decreasing radiation doses. • Low-dose prospective coronary CTA with IR can acquire satisfactory image quality. • Low-dose prospective coronary CTA with IR can show high diagnostic accuracy.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the accuracy of low-dose coronary CTA with iterative reconstruction (IR) in the diagnosis of coronary artery disease (CAD) in patients with suspected CAD. METHODS: Ninety-six patients with suspected CAD underwent low-dose prospective electrocardiogram-gated coronary CTA, with images reconstructed using IR. Image quality (IQ) of coronary segments were graded on a 4-point scale (4, excellent; 1, non-diagnostic). With invasive coronary angiography (ICA) considered the "gold standard", the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) and accuracy of coronary CTA were calculated on segment-, vessel- and patient-based levels. The patient data were divided into two groups (Agatston scores of ≥ 400 and <400). The differences in diagnostic performance between the two groups were tested. RESULTS: Diagnostic image quality was found in 98.1 % (1,232/1,256) of segments. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV and accuracy were 90.8 %, 95.3 %, 81.8 %, 97.8 % and 94.3 % (segment-based) and 97.2 %, 83.3 %, 94.6 %, 90.9 % and 93.8 % (patient-based). Significant differences between the two groups were seen in specificity, PPV and accuracy (92.1 % vs. 97.9 %, 76.0 % vs. 86.7 %, 91.7 % vs. 96.6 %, P < 0.05; segment-based). The average effective dose was 1.30 ± 0.15 mSv. CONCLUSION: Low-dose prospective coronary CTA with IR can acquire satisfactory image quality and show high diagnostic accuracy in patients with suspected CAD; however, blooming continues to pose a challenge in severely calcified segments. KEY POINTS: • Coronary artery disease (CAD) is increasingly investigated using coronary CTA. • The iterative reconstruction (IR) algorithm is promising in decreasing radiation doses. • Low-dose prospective coronary CTA with IR can acquire satisfactory image quality. • Low-dose prospective coronary CTA with IR can show high diagnostic accuracy.
Authors: Peter B Noël; Alexander A Fingerle; Bernhard Renger; Daniela Münzel; Ernst J Rummeny; Martin Dobritz Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2011-12 Impact factor: 3.959
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: James P Earls; Elise L Berman; Bruce A Urban; Charlene A Curry; Judith L Lane; Robert S Jennings; Colin C McCulloch; Jiang Hsieh; John H Londt Journal: Radiology Date: 2008-01-14 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Patricia Carrascosa; Carlos Capuñay; Alejandro Deviggiano; Alejandro Goldsmit; Carlos Tajer; Marcelo Bettinotti; Jorge Carrascosa; Thomas B Ivanc; Arzhang Fallahi; Mario J García Journal: J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr Date: 2010-04-11
Authors: Márcio Sommer Bittencourt; Bernhard Schmidt; Martin Seltmann; Gerd Muschiol; Dieter Ropers; Werner Günther Daniel; Stephan Achenbach Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2010-12-01 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Stefanie Mangold; Julian L Wichmann; U Joseph Schoepf; Sheldon E Litwin; Christian Canstein; Akos Varga-Szemes; Giuseppe Muscogiuri; Stephen R Fuller; Andrew C Stubenrauch; Konstantin Nikolaou; Carlo N De Cecco Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2015-12-28 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Amir Pourmorteza; Noemie Keller; Richard Chen; Albert Lardo; Henry Halperin; Marcus Y Chen; Elliot McVeigh Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2018-03-13 Impact factor: 2.357