YiQi Yang1, Yeung Yam1, Li Chen2, Ahmed Aljizeeri1, Siamak Aliyary Ghraboghly1, Ibraheem Al-Harbi1, Ally Pen1, Terrence D Ruddy1,3, Benjamin J W Chow4,5. 1. Division of Cardiology, University of Ottawa Heart Institute, 40 Ruskin Street, Ottawa, ON, K1Y 4W7, Canada. 2. Cardiovascular Research Methods Centre, University of Ottawa Heart Institute, Ottawa, Canada. 3. Department of Radiology, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada. 4. Division of Cardiology, University of Ottawa Heart Institute, 40 Ruskin Street, Ottawa, ON, K1Y 4W7, Canada. bchow@ottawaheart.ca. 5. Department of Radiology, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada. bchow@ottawaheart.ca.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cardiac CT is a non-invasive modality with the ability to estimate LVEF. However, given its limited temporal resolution and radiation, there has been initial resistance to use CT to measure LVEF. Developing an accurate, fast, low radiation dose protocol is desirable. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to demonstrate that a 'low radiation dose' 64 slice cardiac computed tomography (CT) protocol is feasible and can accurately measure left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) while delivering a radiation dose lower than radionuclide angiography (RNA). METHODS: Patients undergoing RNA were prospectively screened and enrolled to undergo a 'low-dose' 64 slice CT LVEF protocol. LVEF measures, duration of each study and radiation dose between CT and RNA were compared. RESULTS: A total of 77 patients (mean age = 61.8 ± 12.2 years and 58 men) were analyzed. The mean LVEF measured by CT and RNA were 41.9 ± 15.2% and 39.4 ± 13.9%, respectively, (P = 0.154) with a good correlation (r = 0.863). Bland-Altman plot revealed a good agreement between the CT and RNA LVEF (mean difference of -2.4). There was good agreement between CT LVEF and RNA for identifying patients with LVEF ≤30% (kappa = 0.693) and LVEF ≥50% (kappa = 0.749). The mean dose estimated effective dose for CT and RNA were 4.7 ± 1.6 and 9.5 ± 1.0 mSv, respectively. The mean CT LVEF imaging duration (4:32 ± 3:05 minutes) was significantly shorter than the RNA image acquisition time (9:05 ± 2:36 minutes; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The results of our study suggest that low-dose CT LVEF protocol is feasible, accurate, and fast while delivering a lower radiation dose than traditional RNA.
BACKGROUND: Cardiac CT is a non-invasive modality with the ability to estimate LVEF. However, given its limited temporal resolution and radiation, there has been initial resistance to use CT to measure LVEF. Developing an accurate, fast, low radiation dose protocol is desirable. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to demonstrate that a 'low radiation dose' 64 slice cardiac computed tomography (CT) protocol is feasible and can accurately measure left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) while delivering a radiation dose lower than radionuclide angiography (RNA). METHODS:Patients undergoing RNA were prospectively screened and enrolled to undergo a 'low-dose' 64 slice CT LVEF protocol. LVEF measures, duration of each study and radiation dose between CT and RNA were compared. RESULTS: A total of 77 patients (mean age = 61.8 ± 12.2 years and 58 men) were analyzed. The mean LVEF measured by CT and RNA were 41.9 ± 15.2% and 39.4 ± 13.9%, respectively, (P = 0.154) with a good correlation (r = 0.863). Bland-Altman plot revealed a good agreement between the CT and RNA LVEF (mean difference of -2.4). There was good agreement between CT LVEF and RNA for identifying patients with LVEF ≤30% (kappa = 0.693) and LVEF ≥50% (kappa = 0.749). The mean dose estimated effective dose for CT and RNA were 4.7 ± 1.6 and 9.5 ± 1.0 mSv, respectively. The mean CT LVEF imaging duration (4:32 ± 3:05 minutes) was significantly shorter than the RNA image acquisition time (9:05 ± 2:36 minutes; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The results of our study suggest that low-dose CT LVEF protocol is feasible, accurate, and fast while delivering a lower radiation dose than traditional RNA.
Authors: Marc Dewey; Mira Müller; Stephan Eddicks; Dirk Schnapauff; Florian Teige; Wolfgang Rutsch; Adrian C Borges; Bernd Hamm Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2006-11-01 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: J D Schuijf; J J Bax; J W Jukema; H J Lamb; L P Salm; A de Roos; E E van der Wall Journal: Int J Cardiol Date: 2006-07-10 Impact factor: 4.164
Authors: Javed Butler; Michael D Shapiro; Davinder S Jassal; Davindar Jassal; Tomas G Neilan; Tomas Neilan; John Nichols; Maros Ferencik; Thomas J Brady; Udo Hoffmann; Ricardo C Cury Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2006-11-27 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Andrea M Russo; Raymond F Stainback; Steven R Bailey; Andrew E Epstein; Paul A Heidenreich; Mariell Jessup; Suraj Kapa; Mark S Kremers; Bruce D Lindsay; Lynne Warner Stevenson Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2013-03-01 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Benjamin J W Chow; George A Wells; Li Chen; Yeung Yam; Paul Galiwango; Arun Abraham; Tej Sheth; Carole Dennie; Rob S Beanlands; Terrence D Ruddy Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2010-03-09 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: G J Taylor; J O Humphries; E D Mellits; B Pitt; R A Schulze; L S Griffith; S C Achuff Journal: Circulation Date: 1980-11 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: G Sanz; A Castañer; A Betriu; J Magriña; E Roig; S Coll; J C Paré; F Navarro-López Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1982-05-06 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Robert J McDonald; Jennifer S McDonald; Rickey E Carter; Robert P Hartman; Richard W Katzberg; David F Kallmes; Eric E Williamson Journal: Radiology Date: 2014-09-09 Impact factor: 11.105