OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the role of an ultra-low-dose dual-source CT coronary angiography (CTCA) scan with high pitch for delimiting the range of the subsequent standard CTCA scan. METHODS: 30 patients with an indication for CTCA were prospectively examined using a two-scan dual-source CTCA protocol (2.0 × 64.0 × 0.6 mm; pitch, 3.4; rotation time of 280 ms; 100 kV): Scan 1 was acquired with one-fifth of the tube current suggested by the automatic exposure control software [CareDose 4D™ (Siemens Healthcare, Erlangen, Germany) using 100 kV and 370 mAs as a reference] with the scan length from the tracheal bifurcation to the diaphragmatic border. Scan 2 was acquired with standard tube current extending with reduced scan length based on Scan 1. Nine central coronary artery segments were analysed qualitatively on both scans. RESULTS: Scan 2 (105.1 ± 10.1 mm) was significantly shorter than Scan 1 (127.0 ± 8.7 mm). Image quality scores were significantly better for Scan 2. However, in 5 of 6 (83%) patients with stenotic coronary artery disease, a stenosis was already detected in Scan 1 and in 13 of 24 (54%) patients with non-stenotic coronary arteries, a stenosis was already excluded by Scan 1. Using Scan 2 as reference, the positive- and negative-predictive value of Scan 1 was 83% (5 of 6 patients) and 100% (13 of 13 patients), respectively. CONCLUSION: An ultra-low-dose CTCA planning scan enables a reliable scan length reduction of the following standard CTCA scan and allows for correct diagnosis in a substantial proportion of patients. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Further dose reductions are possible owing to a change in the individual patient's imaging strategy as a prior ultra-low-dose CTCA scan may already rule out the presence of a stenosis or may lead to a direct transferal to an invasive catheter procedure.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the role of an ultra-low-dose dual-source CT coronary angiography (CTCA) scan with high pitch for delimiting the range of the subsequent standard CTCA scan. METHODS: 30 patients with an indication for CTCA were prospectively examined using a two-scan dual-source CTCA protocol (2.0 × 64.0 × 0.6 mm; pitch, 3.4; rotation time of 280 ms; 100 kV): Scan 1 was acquired with one-fifth of the tube current suggested by the automatic exposure control software [CareDose 4D™ (Siemens Healthcare, Erlangen, Germany) using 100 kV and 370 mAs as a reference] with the scan length from the tracheal bifurcation to the diaphragmatic border. Scan 2 was acquired with standard tube current extending with reduced scan length based on Scan 1. Nine central coronary artery segments were analysed qualitatively on both scans. RESULTS: Scan 2 (105.1 ± 10.1 mm) was significantly shorter than Scan 1 (127.0 ± 8.7 mm). Image quality scores were significantly better for Scan 2. However, in 5 of 6 (83%) patients with stenotic coronary artery disease, a stenosis was already detected in Scan 1 and in 13 of 24 (54%) patients with non-stenotic coronary arteries, a stenosis was already excluded by Scan 1. Using Scan 2 as reference, the positive- and negative-predictive value of Scan 1 was 83% (5 of 6 patients) and 100% (13 of 13 patients), respectively. CONCLUSION: An ultra-low-dose CTCA planning scan enables a reliable scan length reduction of the following standard CTCA scan and allows for correct diagnosis in a substantial proportion of patients. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Further dose reductions are possible owing to a change in the individual patient's imaging strategy as a prior ultra-low-dose CTCA scan may already rule out the presence of a stenosis or may lead to a direct transferal to an invasive catheter procedure.
Authors: Sebastian Leschka; Hans Scheffel; Lotus Desbiolles; Andre Plass; Oliver Gaemperli; Ines Valenta; Lars Husmann; Thomas G Flohr; Michele Genoni; Borut Marincek; Philipp A Kaufmann; Hatem Alkadhi Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2007-08 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: B Jung; A H Mahnken; A Stargardt; J Simon; T G Flohr; S Schaller; R Koos; R W Günther; J E Wildberger Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2003-10-21 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: W Bob Meijboom; Carlos A G van Mieghem; Nico R Mollet; Francesca Pugliese; Annick C Weustink; Niels van Pelt; Filippo Cademartiri; Koen Nieman; Eric Boersma; Peter de Jaegere; Gabriel P Krestin; Pim J de Feyter Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2007-09-24 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Lars Husmann; Ines Valenta; Oliver Gaemperli; Olivier Adda; Valerie Treyer; Christophe A Wyss; Patrick Veit-Haibach; Fuminari Tatsugami; Gustav K von Schulthess; Philipp A Kaufmann Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2007-12-18 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Matthew J Budoff; David Dowe; James G Jollis; Michael Gitter; John Sutherland; Edward Halamert; Markus Scherer; Raye Bellinger; Arthur Martin; Robert Benton; Augustin Delago; James K Min Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2008-11-18 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Caryl Elizabeth Richards; Stephen Dorman; Patricia John; Anthony Davies; Sharon Evans; Tishi Ninan; David Martin; Sriranj Kannoly; Gail Roberts-Davies; Mark Ramsey; Daniel Rhys Obaid Journal: World J Radiol Date: 2018-10-28