OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of a novel intra-cycle motion correction algorithm (MCA) on overall evaluability and diagnostic accuracy of cardiac computed tomography coronary angiography (CCT). METHODS: From a cohort of 900 consecutive patients referred for CCT for suspected coronary artery disease (CAD), we enrolled 160 (18 %) patients (mean age 65.3 ± 11.7 years, 101 male) with at least one coronary segment classified as non-evaluable for motion artefacts. The CCT data sets were evaluated using a standard reconstruction algorithm (SRA) and MCA and compared in terms of subjective image quality, evaluability and diagnostic accuracy. RESULTS: The mean heart rate during the examination was 68.3 ± 9.4 bpm. The MCA showed a higher Likert score (3.1 ± 0.9 vs. 2.5 ± 1.1, p < 0.001) and evaluability (94%vs.79 %, p < 0.001) than the SRA. In a 45-patient subgroup studied by clinically indicated invasive coronary angiography, specificity, positive predictive value and accuracy were higher in MCA vs. SRA in segment-based and vessel-based models, respectively (87%vs.73 %, 50%vs.34 %, 85%vs.73 %, p < 0.001 and 62%vs.28 %, 66%vs.51 % and 75%vs.57 %, p < 0.001). In a patient-based model, MCA showed higher accuracy vs. SCA (93%vs.76 %, p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: MCA can significantly improve subjective image quality, overall evaluability and diagnostic accuracy of CCT. KEY POINTS: Cardiac computed tomographic coronary angiography (CCT) allows non-invasive evaluation of coronary arteries. Intra-cycle motion correction algorithm (MCA) allows for compensation of coronary motion. An MCA improves image quality, CCT evaluability and diagnostic accuracy.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of a novel intra-cycle motion correction algorithm (MCA) on overall evaluability and diagnostic accuracy of cardiac computed tomography coronary angiography (CCT). METHODS: From a cohort of 900 consecutive patients referred for CCT for suspected coronary artery disease (CAD), we enrolled 160 (18 %) patients (mean age 65.3 ± 11.7 years, 101 male) with at least one coronary segment classified as non-evaluable for motion artefacts. The CCT data sets were evaluated using a standard reconstruction algorithm (SRA) and MCA and compared in terms of subjective image quality, evaluability and diagnostic accuracy. RESULTS: The mean heart rate during the examination was 68.3 ± 9.4 bpm. The MCA showed a higher Likert score (3.1 ± 0.9 vs. 2.5 ± 1.1, p < 0.001) and evaluability (94%vs.79 %, p < 0.001) than the SRA. In a 45-patient subgroup studied by clinically indicated invasive coronary angiography, specificity, positive predictive value and accuracy were higher in MCA vs. SRA in segment-based and vessel-based models, respectively (87%vs.73 %, 50%vs.34 %, 85%vs.73 %, p < 0.001 and 62%vs.28 %, 66%vs.51 % and 75%vs.57 %, p < 0.001). In a patient-based model, MCA showed higher accuracy vs. SCA (93%vs.76 %, p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: MCA can significantly improve subjective image quality, overall evaluability and diagnostic accuracy of CCT. KEY POINTS: Cardiac computed tomographic coronary angiography (CCT) allows non-invasive evaluation of coronary arteries. Intra-cycle motion correction algorithm (MCA) allows for compensation of coronary motion. An MCA improves image quality, CCT evaluability and diagnostic accuracy.
Authors: Bernd J Wintersperger; Konstantin Nikolaou; Franz von Ziegler; Thorsten Johnson; Carsten Rist; Alexander Leber; Thomas Flohr; Andreas Knez; Maximilian F Reiser; Christoph R Becker Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2006-05 Impact factor: 6.016
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: Monvadi B Srichai; Ruth P Lim; Robert Donnino; Lorenzo Mannelli; Rajesh Hiralal; Ryan Avery; Corey Ho; James S Babb; Jill E Jacobs Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2012-02-24 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Michael D Shapiro; Antonio J Pena; John H Nichols; Stewart Worrell; Fabian Bamberg; Nina Dannemann; Suhny Abbara; Ricardo C Cury; Thomas J Brady; Udo Hoffmann Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2007-06-22 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: Bhavna Balaney; Mani Vembar; Michael Grass; Amita Singh; Keigo Kawaji; Luis Landeras; Jonathan Chung; Victor Mor-Avi; Amit R Patel Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2019-03-02 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: Adriana Argentiero; Giuseppe Muscogiuri; Mark G Rabbat; Chiara Martini; Nicolò Soldato; Paolo Basile; Andrea Baggiano; Saima Mushtaq; Laura Fusini; Maria Elisabetta Mancini; Nicola Gaibazzi; Vincenzo Ezio Santobuono; Sandro Sironi; Gianluca Pontone; Andrea Igoren Guaricci Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-05-19 Impact factor: 4.964
Authors: Andrea Igoren Guaricci; Delia De Santis; Mariangela Carbone; Giuseppe Muscogiuri; Marco Guglielmo; Andrea Baggiano; Gaetano Serviddio; Gianluca Pontone Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2018-01-15 Impact factor: 3.411
Authors: Francesca Baessato; Marco Guglielmo; Giuseppe Muscogiuri; Andrea Baggiano; Laura Fusini; Stefano Scafuri; Mario Babbaro; Rocco Mollace; Ada Collevecchio; Andrea I Guaricci; Gianluca Pontone Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2021-01-14 Impact factor: 3.411
Authors: Giuseppe Muscogiuri; Marly Van Assen; Christian Tesche; Carlo N De Cecco; Mattia Chiesa; Stefano Scafuri; Marco Guglielmo; Andrea Baggiano; Laura Fusini; Andrea I Guaricci; Mark G Rabbat; Gianluca Pontone Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2020-12-16 Impact factor: 3.411
Authors: Antonio Esposito; Marco Francone; Daniele Andreini; Vitaliano Buffa; Filippo Cademartiri; Iacopo Carbone; Alberto Clemente; Andrea Igoren Guaricci; Marco Guglielmo; Ciro Indolfi; Ludovico La Grutta; Guido Ligabue; Carlo Liguori; Giuseppe Mercuro; Saima Mushtaq; Danilo Neglia; Anna Palmisano; Roberto Sciagrà; Sara Seitun; Davide Vignale; Gianluca Pontone; Nazario Carrabba Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2021-06-23 Impact factor: 3.469