Seitaro Oda1, Keiichi Honda2, Akira Yoshimura2, Kazuhiro Katahira2, Katsuo Noda3, Shuichi Oshima3, Hideaki Yuki4, Masafumi Kidoh4, Daisuke Utsunomiya4, Takeshi Nakaura4, Tomohiro Namimoto4, Yasuyuki Yamashita4. 1. Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Faculty of Life Sciences, Kumamoto University, 1-1-1 Honjyo, Chuou-ku, Kumamoto, 860-8556, Japan. seisei0430@nifty.com. 2. Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Kumamoto Chuo Hospital, 1-5-1 Tainoshima, Minami-ku, Kumamoto, 862-0965, Japan. 3. Department of Cardiology, Kumamoto Chuo Hospital, 1-5-1 Tainoshima, Minami-ku, Kumamoto, 862-0965, Japan. 4. Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Faculty of Life Sciences, Kumamoto University, 1-1-1 Honjyo, Chuou-ku, Kumamoto, 860-8556, Japan.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess the optimal reconstruction phase and the image quality of coronary computed tomographic angiography (CCTA) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). METHODS: We performed CCTA in 60 patients with AF and 60 controls with sinus rhythm. The images were reconstructed in multiple phases in all parts of the cardiac cycle, and the optimal reconstruction phase with the fewest motion artefacts was identified. The coronary artery segments were visually evaluated to investigate their assessability. RESULTS: In 46 (76.7 %) patients, the optimal reconstruction phase was end-diastole, whereas in 6 (10.0 %) patients it was end-systole or mid-diastole, and in 2 (3.3 %) patients it was another cardiac phase. In 53 (88.3 %) of the controls, the optimal reconstruction phase was mid-diastole, whereas it was end-systole in 4 (6.7 %), and in 3 (5.0 %) it was another cardiac phase. There was a significant difference between patients with AF and the controls in the optimal phase (p < 0.01) but not in the visual image quality score (p = 0.06). CONCLUSIONS: The optimal reconstruction phase in most patients with AF was the end-diastolic phase. The end-systolic phase tended to be optimal in AF patients with higher average heart rates. KEY POINTS: The optimal reconstruction phase in 76.7 % of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) was end-diastole. The end-systolic phase was optimal in AF patients with higher heart rates. ECG and heart-rate control are necessary to obtain end-diastolic images with fewer motion artefacts.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the optimal reconstruction phase and the image quality of coronary computed tomographic angiography (CCTA) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). METHODS: We performed CCTA in 60 patients with AF and 60 controls with sinus rhythm. The images were reconstructed in multiple phases in all parts of the cardiac cycle, and the optimal reconstruction phase with the fewest motion artefacts was identified. The coronary artery segments were visually evaluated to investigate their assessability. RESULTS: In 46 (76.7 %) patients, the optimal reconstruction phase was end-diastole, whereas in 6 (10.0 %) patients it was end-systole or mid-diastole, and in 2 (3.3 %) patients it was another cardiac phase. In 53 (88.3 %) of the controls, the optimal reconstruction phase was mid-diastole, whereas it was end-systole in 4 (6.7 %), and in 3 (5.0 %) it was another cardiac phase. There was a significant difference between patients with AF and the controls in the optimal phase (p < 0.01) but not in the visual image quality score (p = 0.06). CONCLUSIONS: The optimal reconstruction phase in most patients with AF was the end-diastolic phase. The end-systolic phase tended to be optimal in AFpatients with higher average heart rates. KEY POINTS: The optimal reconstruction phase in 76.7 % of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) was end-diastole. The end-systolic phase was optimal in AFpatients with higher heart rates. ECG and heart-rate control are necessary to obtain end-diastolic images with fewer motion artefacts.
Authors: Craig T January; L Samuel Wann; Joseph S Alpert; Hugh Calkins; Joaquin E Cigarroa; Joseph C Cleveland; Jamie B Conti; Patrick T Ellinor; Michael D Ezekowitz; Michael E Field; Katherine T Murray; Ralph L Sacco; William G Stevenson; Patrick J Tchou; Cynthia M Tracy; Clyde W Yancy Journal: Circulation Date: 2014-03-28 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Christof Burgstahler; Tobias Trabold; Axel Kuettner; Andreas F Kopp; Christian Mewis; Volker Kuehlkamp; Claus D Claussen; Stephen Schroeder Journal: Int J Cardiol Date: 2005-07-10 Impact factor: 4.164
Authors: Carsten Rist; Thorsten R Johnson; Jens Müller-Starck; Elisabeth Arnoldi; Tobias Saam; Alexander Becker; Alexander W Leber; Bernd J Wintersperger; Christoph R Becker; Maximilian F Reiser; Konstantin Nikolaou Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2009-03 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Anna Matveeva; Rainer R Schmitt; Karoline Edtinger; Matthias Wagner; Sebastian Kerber; Thomas Deneke; Michael Uder; Sebastian Barth Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2018-02-09 Impact factor: 5.315