BACKGROUND: Chest CT scans are frequently performed in radiology departments but have not previously contained detailed depiction of cardiac structures. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate myocardial and coronary visualization on high-pitch non-gated CT of the chest using 3rd generation dual-source computed tomography (CT). METHODS: Cardiac anatomy of patients who had 3rd generation, non-gated high pitch contrast enhanced chest CT and who also had prior conventional (low pitch) chest CT as part of a chest abdomen pelvis exam was evaluated. Cardiac image features were scored by reviewers blinded to diagnosis and pitch. Paired analysis was performed. RESULTS: 3862 coronary segments and 2220 cardiac structures were evaluated by two readers in 222 CT scans. Most patients (97.2%) had chest CT for oncologic evaluation. The median pitch was 2.34 (IQR 2.05, 2.65) in high pitch and 0.8 (IQR 0.8, 0.8) in low pitch scans (p < 0.001). High pitch CT showed higher image visualization scores for all cardiovascular structures compared with conventional pitch scans (p < 0.0001). Coronary arteries were visualized in 9 coronary segments per exam in high pitch scans versus 2 segments for conventional pitch (p < 0.0001). Radiation exposure was lower in the high pitch group compared with the conventional pitch group (median CTDIvol 10.83 vs. 12.36 mGy and DLP 790 vs. 827 mGycm respectively, p < 0.01 for both) with comparable image noise (p = 0.43). CONCLUSION: Myocardial structure and coronary arteries are frequently visualized on non-gated 3rd generation chest CT. These results raise the question of whether the heart and coronary arteries should be routinely interpreted on routine chest CT that is otherwise obtained for non-cardiac indications. Published by Elsevier Inc.
BACKGROUND: Chest CT scans are frequently performed in radiology departments but have not previously contained detailed depiction of cardiac structures. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate myocardial and coronary visualization on high-pitch non-gated CT of the chest using 3rd generation dual-source computed tomography (CT). METHODS: Cardiac anatomy of patients who had 3rd generation, non-gated high pitch contrast enhanced chest CT and who also had prior conventional (low pitch) chest CT as part of a chest abdomen pelvis exam was evaluated. Cardiac image features were scored by reviewers blinded to diagnosis and pitch. Paired analysis was performed. RESULTS: 3862 coronary segments and 2220 cardiac structures were evaluated by two readers in 222 CT scans. Most patients (97.2%) had chest CT for oncologic evaluation. The median pitch was 2.34 (IQR 2.05, 2.65) in high pitch and 0.8 (IQR 0.8, 0.8) in low pitch scans (p < 0.001). High pitch CT showed higher image visualization scores for all cardiovascular structures compared with conventional pitch scans (p < 0.0001). Coronary arteries were visualized in 9 coronary segments per exam in high pitch scans versus 2 segments for conventional pitch (p < 0.0001). Radiation exposure was lower in the high pitch group compared with the conventional pitch group (median CTDIvol 10.83 vs. 12.36 mGy and DLP 790 vs. 827 mGycm respectively, p < 0.01 for both) with comparable image noise (p = 0.43). CONCLUSION: Myocardial structure and coronary arteries are frequently visualized on non-gated 3rd generation chest CT. These results raise the question of whether the heart and coronary arteries should be routinely interpreted on routine chest CT that is otherwise obtained for non-cardiac indications. Published by Elsevier Inc.
Authors: Heber MacMahon; John H M Austin; Gordon Gamsu; Christian J Herold; James R Jett; David P Naidich; Edward F Patz; Stephen J Swensen Journal: Radiology Date: 2005-11 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Michael J Kucharczyk; Ravi J Menezes; Alexander McGregor; Narinder S Paul; Heidi C Roberts Journal: Can Assoc Radiol J Date: 2010-04-10 Impact factor: 2.248
Authors: Pushpa M Jairam; Martijn J A Gondrie; Diederick E Grobbee; Willem P Th M Mali; Peter C A Jacobs; Yolanda van der Graaf Journal: Radiology Date: 2014-05-27 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Jan M Hughes-Austin; Arturo Dominguez; Matthew A Allison; Christina L Wassel; Dena E Rifkin; Cindy G Morgan; Michael R Daniels; Umaira Ikram; Jessica B Knox; C Michael Wright; Michael H Criqui; Joachim H Ix Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2016-01-06
Authors: Alexander Goehler; Pamela M McMahon; Heidi S Lumish; Carol C Wu; Vidit Munshi; Michael Gilmore; Jonathan H Chung; Brian B Ghoshhajra; Daniel Mark; Quynh A Truong; G Scott Gazelle; Udo Hoffmann Journal: Circulation Date: 2014-07-11 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Lakshmi Ananthakrishnan; Fernando U Kay; Eric A Zeikus; Eugene S Chu; Joseph Chang; John D Barr; Neil M Rofsky; Suhny Abbara Journal: Radiol Cardiothorac Imaging Date: 2022-05-25
Authors: Jacobo Kirsch; Felipe Martinez; David Lopez; Gian M Novaro; Craig R Asher Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2016-09-27 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Nienke G Eijsvoogel; Babs M F Hendriks; Hugo B Park; Sibel Altintas; Casper Mihl; Barbora Horehledova; Bastiaan L J H Kietselaer; Harry J G M Crijns; Joachim E Wildberger; Marco Das Journal: Eur Radiol Exp Date: 2018-04-27