OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of a low-dose (LD) and an ultra-LD (ULD) contrast protocol for coronary CT angiography on qualitative and quantitative image parameters in a clinical setting. METHODS: We scanned 120 consecutive patients with a 256-slice CT scanner applying a LD (60 patients, 35-55 ml) or ULD (60 patients, 25-45 ml) contrast protocol adapted to the body mass index. Visually assessed image quality and attenuation measured in each coronary segment were retrospectively compared in 20 consecutive patients scanned with a normal-dose (ND, 40-105 ml) contrast protocol. RESULTS: Visually assessed image quality did not differ significantly among protocols. By contrast, attenuation obtained from the ULD protocol (median contrast volume 35 ml) differed significantly from the LD (median 45 ml) and ND (median 70 ml) protocols in the coronary segments (316 ± 52 vs 363 ± 60 and 359 ± 52 HU, p < 0.001). Attenuation did not differ significantly between the LD and ND protocol. The proportion of patients with inadequate coronary vessel attenuation was significantly higher (p < 0.001) in the ULD protocol (37%) than in the ND (5%) and LD (10%) protocols but did not differ significantly between the ND and LD protocols. CONCLUSION: In a clinical setting, a LD contrast protocol with a median volume of 45 ml is feasible for the latest generation 256-slice coronary CT angiography as it yields attenuation comparable to a ND protocol. By contrast, the implementation of an ULD protocol remains challenging. Advances in knowledge: Although not perceived by the naked eye, an ULD contrast protocol in a clinical setting yields attenuation below a threshold for diagnostic image quality.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of a low-dose (LD) and an ultra-LD (ULD) contrast protocol for coronary CT angiography on qualitative and quantitative image parameters in a clinical setting. METHODS: We scanned 120 consecutive patients with a 256-slice CT scanner applying a LD (60 patients, 35-55 ml) or ULD (60 patients, 25-45 ml) contrast protocol adapted to the body mass index. Visually assessed image quality and attenuation measured in each coronary segment were retrospectively compared in 20 consecutive patients scanned with a normal-dose (ND, 40-105 ml) contrast protocol. RESULTS: Visually assessed image quality did not differ significantly among protocols. By contrast, attenuation obtained from the ULD protocol (median contrast volume 35 ml) differed significantly from the LD (median 45 ml) and ND (median 70 ml) protocols in the coronary segments (316 ± 52 vs 363 ± 60 and 359 ± 52 HU, p < 0.001). Attenuation did not differ significantly between the LD and ND protocol. The proportion of patients with inadequate coronary vessel attenuation was significantly higher (p < 0.001) in the ULD protocol (37%) than in the ND (5%) and LD (10%) protocols but did not differ significantly between the ND and LD protocols. CONCLUSION: In a clinical setting, a LD contrast protocol with a median volume of 45 ml is feasible for the latest generation 256-slice coronary CT angiography as it yields attenuation comparable to a ND protocol. By contrast, the implementation of an ULD protocol remains challenging. Advances in knowledge: Although not perceived by the naked eye, an ULD contrast protocol in a clinical setting yields attenuation below a threshold for diagnostic image quality.
Authors: Christoph R Becker; Cheng Hong; Andreas Knez; Alexander Leber; Roland Bruening; U Joseph Schoepf; Maximilian F Reiser Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2003-11 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: Juhani Knuuti; Frank Bengel; Jeroen J Bax; Philipp A Kaufmann; Dominique Le Guludec; Pasquale Perrone Filardi; Claudio Marcassa; Nina Ajmone Marsan; Stephan Achenbach; Anastasia Kitsiou; Albert Flotats; Eric Eeckhout; Heikki Minn; Birger Hesse Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2013-12-29 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Kanako K Kumamaru; Michael L Steigner; Shigeyoshi Soga; Jason Signorelli; Arash Bedayat; Kimberly Adams; Dimitris Mitsouras; Frank J Rybicki Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2011-10 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: L Gruberg; G S Mintz; R Mehran; G Gangas; A J Lansky; K M Kent; A D Pichard; L F Satler; M B Leon Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2000-11-01 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Georgios Benetos; Ronny R Buechel; Marisa Gonçalves; Dominik C Benz; Elia von Felten; Georgios P Rampidis; Olivier F Clerc; Michael Messerli; Andreas A Giannopoulos; Cathérine Gebhard; Tobias A Fuchs; Aju P Pazhenkottil; Philipp A Kaufmann; Christoph Gräni Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2020-01-01 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Dominik C Benz; Fran Mikulicic; Christoph Gräni; Marvin Grossmann; Andreas A Giannopoulos; Michael Messerli; Catherine Gebhard; Oliver Gaemperli; Ronny R Buechel; Philipp A Kaufmann; Aju P Pazhenkottil Journal: EJNMMI Res Date: 2017-11-25 Impact factor: 3.138