Nandini M Meyersohn1, Balint Szilveszter2, Pedro V Staziaki2, Jan-Erik Scholtz2, Richard A P Takx2, Udo Hoffmann3, Brian B Ghoshhajra3. 1. Cardiac MR PET CT Program, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA; Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. Electronic address: nmeyersohn@mgh.harvard.edu. 2. Cardiac MR PET CT Program, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. 3. Cardiac MR PET CT Program, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA; Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Coronary computed tomography angiography (coronary CTA) allows efficient triage of low to intermediate risk patients with suspected acute coronary syndrome (ACS) in the emergency department (ED). Techniques for coronary CTA acquisition in the ED continue to evolve with the establishment of standardized scan protocols and the introduction of newer generations of CT hardware. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate qualitative and quantitative image quality and radiation dose exposure of coronary CTA acquired on 2nd versus 3rd generation dual source CT (DSCT) scanners using a standardized institutional scan protocol designed for the ED. METHODS: A retrospective observational case-control study was performed of 246 ED patients referred to coronary CTA with suspicion of ACS (56.5% male; mean age 53.3 ± 11.6 years) between October 2013 and August 2015.123 consecutive patients were scanned on 3rd generation DSCT, and a cohort of 123 patients matched by age, BMI and heart rate were identified who had undergone 2nd generation DSCT imaging utilizing the same standard clinical protocol. Qualitative and quantitative image quality parameters and radiation exposures were evaluated. RESULTS: Qualitative image quality was significantly higher using 3rd generation DSCT as compared to 2nd generation (p < 0.001). Mean attenuation in the proximal coronary arteries was also significantly higher on 3rd generation DSCT than for 2nd generation (586 HU vs. 426 HU in the left main coronary artery (LM), p < 0.001). Signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) values, however, were lower in 3rd generation DSCT than 2nd generation (SNR 11.2 [9.9-13.4] vs 13.5 [11.0-15.5] and CNR 12.4 [10.9-14.8] vs 15.2 [12.8-17.9] in the LM, p < 0.001). Median effective dose was also lower for 3rd generation DSCT than for 2nd generation (2.9 [2.3-5.0] mSv and 3.7 mSv [2.5-5.7], respectively) although this trend did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.065). CONCLUSION: Qualitative image quality and mean CT attenuation values of the assessed coronary segments were significantly higher using 3rd generation DSCT. SNR and CNR were lower on 3rd generation DSCT, however this was accompanied by a trend toward lower radiation dose exposure when using the same standard institutional protocol.
BACKGROUND: Coronary computed tomography angiography (coronary CTA) allows efficient triage of low to intermediate risk patients with suspected acute coronary syndrome (ACS) in the emergency department (ED). Techniques for coronary CTA acquisition in the ED continue to evolve with the establishment of standardized scan protocols and the introduction of newer generations of CT hardware. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate qualitative and quantitative image quality and radiation dose exposure of coronary CTA acquired on 2nd versus 3rd generation dual source CT (DSCT) scanners using a standardized institutional scan protocol designed for the ED. METHODS: A retrospective observational case-control study was performed of 246 ED patients referred to coronary CTA with suspicion of ACS (56.5% male; mean age 53.3 ± 11.6 years) between October 2013 and August 2015.123 consecutive patients were scanned on 3rd generation DSCT, and a cohort of 123 patients matched by age, BMI and heart rate were identified who had undergone 2nd generation DSCT imaging utilizing the same standard clinical protocol. Qualitative and quantitative image quality parameters and radiation exposures were evaluated. RESULTS: Qualitative image quality was significantly higher using 3rd generation DSCT as compared to 2nd generation (p < 0.001). Mean attenuation in the proximal coronary arteries was also significantly higher on 3rd generation DSCT than for 2nd generation (586 HU vs. 426 HU in the left main coronary artery (LM), p < 0.001). Signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) values, however, were lower in 3rd generation DSCT than 2nd generation (SNR 11.2 [9.9-13.4] vs 13.5 [11.0-15.5] and CNR 12.4 [10.9-14.8] vs 15.2 [12.8-17.9] in the LM, p < 0.001). Median effective dose was also lower for 3rd generation DSCT than for 2nd generation (2.9 [2.3-5.0] mSv and 3.7 mSv [2.5-5.7], respectively) although this trend did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.065). CONCLUSION: Qualitative image quality and mean CT attenuation values of the assessed coronary segments were significantly higher using 3rd generation DSCT. SNR and CNR were lower on 3rd generation DSCT, however this was accompanied by a trend toward lower radiation dose exposure when using the same standard institutional protocol.
Authors: Michaela M Hell; Daniel Bittner; Annika Schuhbaeck; Gerd Muschiol; Michael Brand; Michael Lell; Michael Uder; Stephan Achenbach; Mohamed Marwan Journal: J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr Date: 2014-09-16
Authors: Harold I Litt; Constantine Gatsonis; Brad Snyder; Harjit Singh; Chadwick D Miller; Daniel W Entrikin; James M Leaming; Laurence J Gavin; Charissa B Pacella; Judd E Hollander Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2012-03-26 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Márcio Sommer Bittencourt; Bernhard Schmidt; Martin Seltmann; Gerd Muschiol; Dieter Ropers; Werner Günther Daniel; Stephan Achenbach Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2010-12-01 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Felix G Meinel; Christian Canstein; U Joseph Schoepf; Martin Sedlmaier; Bernhard Schmidt; Brett S Harris; Thomas G Flohr; Carlo N De Cecco Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2014-05-10 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Christian Layritz; Jasmin Schmid; Stephan Achenbach; Stefan Ulzheimer; Wolfgang Wuest; Matthias May; Dieter Ropers; Lutz Klinghammer; Werner G Daniel; Tobias Pflederer; Michael Lell Journal: Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2014-06-17 Impact factor: 6.875
Authors: Mathias Meyer; Holger Haubenreisser; U Joseph Schoepf; Rozemarijn Vliegenthart; Christianne Leidecker; Thomas Allmendinger; Ralf Lehmann; Sonja Sudarski; Martin Borggrefe; Stefan O Schoenberg; Thomas Henzler Journal: Radiology Date: 2014-05-31 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Wei-Hua Yin; Bin Lu; Nan Li; Lei Han; Zhi-Hui Hou; Run-Ze Wu; Yong-Jian Wu; Hong-Xia Niu; Shi-Liang Jiang; Aleksander W Krazinski; Ullrich Ebersberger; Felix G Meinel; U Joseph Schoepf Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2013-10-23
Authors: Michael C Honigberg; Bradley S Lander; Vinit Baliyan; Maeve Jones-O'Connor; Emma W Healy; Jan-Erik Scholtz; John T Nagurney; Udo Hoffmann; Brian B Ghoshhajra; Pradeep Natarajan Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2019-07-17
Authors: Jan-Erik Scholtz; Michael T Lu; Sandeep Hedgire; Nina M Meyersohn; George R Oliveira; Anand M Prabhakar; Rajiv Gupta; Mannudeep K Kalra; Jo-Anne O Shepard; Udo Hoffmann; Brian B Ghoshhajra Journal: J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr Date: 2017-11-14
Authors: Luiz Eduardo Mastrocola; Barbara Juarez Amorim; João Vicente Vitola; Simone Cristina Soares Brandão; Gabriel Blacher Grossman; Ronaldo de Souza Leão Lima; Rafael Willain Lopes; William Azem Chalela; Lara Cristiane Terra Ferreira Carreira; José Roberto Nolasco de Araújo; Cláudio Tinoco Mesquita; José Claudio Meneghetti Journal: Arq Bras Cardiol Date: 2020-02 Impact factor: 2.000
Authors: Ji Won Lee; Kyung Jin Nam; Jin You Kim; Yeon Joo Jeong; Geewon Lee; So Min Park; Soo Jin Lim; Ki Seok Choo Journal: J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2019-11-20