BACKGROUND: This study aims to compare the image quality of second generation versus first generation 320-computed tomography coronary angiography (CTCA) in patients with heart rate ≥65 bpm as it has not been specifically reported. METHODS: Consecutive patients who underwent CTCA using second-generation-320-detector-row-CT were prospectively enrolled. A total of 50 patients with elevated (≥65 bpm) heart rate and 50 patients with controlled (<65 bpm) heart rate were included. Age and gender matched patients who were scanned with the first-generation-320-detector-row-CT were retrospectively identified. Image quality in each coronary artery segment was assessed by two blinded CT angiographers using the five-point Likert scale. RESULTS: In the elevated heart rate cohorts, while there was no significant difference in heart rate during scan-acquisition (66 vs. 69 bpm, P=0.308), or body mass index (28.5 vs. 29.6, P=0.464), the second generation scanner was associated with better image quality (3.94±0.6 vs. 3.45±0.8, P=0.001), and with lower radiation (2.8 vs. 4.3 mSv, P=0.009). There was no difference in scan image quality for the controlled heart rate cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: The second generation CT scanner provides better image quality at lower radiation dose in patients with elevated heart rate (≥65 bpm) compared to first generation CT scanner.
BACKGROUND: This study aims to compare the image quality of second generation versus first generation 320-computed tomography coronary angiography (CTCA) in patients with heart rate ≥65 bpm as it has not been specifically reported. METHODS: Consecutive patients who underwent CTCA using second-generation-320-detector-row-CT were prospectively enrolled. A total of 50 patients with elevated (≥65 bpm) heart rate and 50 patients with controlled (<65 bpm) heart rate were included. Age and gender matched patients who were scanned with the first-generation-320-detector-row-CT were retrospectively identified. Image quality in each coronary artery segment was assessed by two blinded CT angiographers using the five-point Likert scale. RESULTS: In the elevated heart rate cohorts, while there was no significant difference in heart rate during scan-acquisition (66 vs. 69 bpm, P=0.308), or body mass index (28.5 vs. 29.6, P=0.464), the second generation scanner was associated with better image quality (3.94±0.6 vs. 3.45±0.8, P=0.001), and with lower radiation (2.8 vs. 4.3 mSv, P=0.009). There was no difference in scan image quality for the controlled heart rate cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: The second generation CT scanner provides better image quality at lower radiation dose in patients with elevated heart rate (≥65 bpm) compared to first generation CT scanner.
Authors: Amir A Mahabadi; Stephan Achenbach; Christof Burgstahler; Thorsten Dill; Roman Fischbach; Andreas Knez; Werner Moshage; Barbara M Richartz; Dieter Ropers; Stephen Schröder; Sigmund Silber; Stefan Möhlenkamp Journal: Radiology Date: 2010-12 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Harold I Litt; Constantine Gatsonis; Brad Snyder; Harjit Singh; Chadwick D Miller; Daniel W Entrikin; James M Leaming; Laurence J Gavin; Charissa B Pacella; Judd E Hollander Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2012-03-26 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Arthur Nasis; Michael C Leung; Paul R Antonis; James D Cameron; Sam J Lehman; Sarah A Hope; Marcus P Crossett; John M Troupis; Ian T Meredith; Sujith K Seneviratne Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2010-10-01 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Michael L Steigner; Hansel J Otero; Tianxi Cai; Dimitrios Mitsouras; Leelakrishna Nallamshetty; Amanda G Whitmore; Hale Ersoy; Noah A Levit; Marcelo F Di Carli; Frank J Rybicki Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2008-07-29 Impact factor: 2.357
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: Marcus Y Chen; Michael L Steigner; Steve W Leung; Kanako K Kumamaru; Kurt Schultz; Richard T Mather; Andrew E Arai; Frank J Rybicki Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2013-02-13 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Brian S Ko; Sujith Seneviratne; James D Cameron; Sarah Gutman; Marcus Crossett; Kiran Munnur; Ian T Meredith; Dennis T L Wong Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2016-03-07 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Andrew Lin; Márton Kolossváry; Sebastien Cadet; Priscilla McElhinney; Markus Goeller; Donghee Han; Jeremy Yuvaraj; Nitesh Nerlekar; Piotr J Slomka; Mohamed Marwan; Stephen J Nicholls; Stephan Achenbach; Pál Maurovich-Horvat; Dennis T L Wong; Damini Dey Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2022-01-12
Authors: Nitesh Nerlekar; Brian S Ko; Arthur Nasis; James D Cameron; Michael Leung; Adam J Brown; Dennis T L Wong; Philip J Ngu; John M Troupis; Sujith K Seneviratne Journal: Cardiovasc Diagn Ther Date: 2017-06
Authors: Andrew Lin; Márton Kolossváry; Jeremy Yuvaraj; Sebastien Cadet; Priscilla A McElhinney; Cathy Jiang; Nitesh Nerlekar; Stephen J Nicholls; Piotr J Slomka; Pál Maurovich-Horvat; Dennis T L Wong; Damini Dey Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2020-08-26
Authors: Peter J Psaltis; Andrew H Talman; Kiran Munnur; James D Cameron; Brian S H Ko; Ian T Meredith; Sujith K Seneviratne; Dennis T L Wong Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2015-09-03 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Andrew Lin; Nitesh Nerlekar; Jeremy Yuvaraj; Katrina Fernandes; Cathy Jiang; Stephen J Nicholls; Damini Dey; Dennis T L Wong Journal: Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2021-02-22 Impact factor: 6.875