Tsukasa Kojima1,2, Takashi Shirasaka3, Yuzo Yamasaki4, Masatoshi Kondo3, Hiroshi Hamasaki3, Ryoji Mikayama3, Yuki Sakai3, Toyoyuki Kato3, Akihiro Nishie5, Kousei Ishigami4, Hidetake Yabuuchi6. 1. Division of Radiology, Department of Medical Technology, Kyushu University Hospital, 3-1-1 Maidashi, Higashi-ku, Fukuoka, 812-8582, Japan. kojima.tsukasa.929@m.kyushu-u.ac.jp. 2. Department of Health Sciences, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan. kojima.tsukasa.929@m.kyushu-u.ac.jp. 3. Division of Radiology, Department of Medical Technology, Kyushu University Hospital, 3-1-1 Maidashi, Higashi-ku, Fukuoka, 812-8582, Japan. 4. Departments of Clinical Radiology, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan. 5. Departments of Radiology, Graduate School of Medical Science, University of the Ryukyus, Okinawa, Japan. 6. Department of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We investigated the effects of the heart rate (HR) on the motion artifact in coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) with ultra-high-resolution-CT (U-HRCT), and we clarified the upper limit of optimal HR in CCTA with U-HRCT in a comparison with conventional-resolution-CT (CRCT) on a cardiac phantom and in patients with CCTA. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A pulsating cardiac phantom equipped with coronary models was scanned at static and HR simulations of 40-90 beats/min (bpm) at 10-bpm intervals using U-HRCT and CRCT, respectively. The sharpness and lumen diameter of the coronary model were quantitatively compared between U-HRCT and CRCT stratified by HR in the phantom study. We also assessed the visual inspections of clinical images in CCTA with U-HRCT. RESULTS: At the HRs ≤ 60 bpm, the error of the lumen diameter of the U-HRCT tended to be smaller than that of the CRCT. However, at the HRs > 60 bpm, the inverse was shown. For the image sharpness, the U-HRCT was significantly superior to the CRCT (p < 0.05). In the visual assessment, the scores were negatively correlated with HRs in patients (Spearman r = - 0.71, p < 0.01). A receiver-operating characteristic analysis revealed the HR of 61 bpm as the optimal cutoff of the non-diagnostic image quality, with an area under the curve of 0.87, 95% sensitivity, and 71% specificity. CONCLUSION: At HRs ≤ 60 bpm, U-HRCT was more accurate in the imaging of coronary arteries than CRCT. The upper limit of the optimal HR in CCTA with U-HRCT was approx. 60 bpm.
PURPOSE: We investigated the effects of the heart rate (HR) on the motion artifact in coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) with ultra-high-resolution-CT (U-HRCT), and we clarified the upper limit of optimal HR in CCTA with U-HRCT in a comparison with conventional-resolution-CT (CRCT) on a cardiac phantom and in patients with CCTA. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A pulsating cardiac phantom equipped with coronary models was scanned at static and HR simulations of 40-90 beats/min (bpm) at 10-bpm intervals using U-HRCT and CRCT, respectively. The sharpness and lumen diameter of the coronary model were quantitatively compared between U-HRCT and CRCT stratified by HR in the phantom study. We also assessed the visual inspections of clinical images in CCTA with U-HRCT. RESULTS: At the HRs ≤ 60 bpm, the error of the lumen diameter of the U-HRCT tended to be smaller than that of the CRCT. However, at the HRs > 60 bpm, the inverse was shown. For the image sharpness, the U-HRCT was significantly superior to the CRCT (p < 0.05). In the visual assessment, the scores were negatively correlated with HRs in patients (Spearman r = - 0.71, p < 0.01). A receiver-operating characteristic analysis revealed the HR of 61 bpm as the optimal cutoff of the non-diagnostic image quality, with an area under the curve of 0.87, 95% sensitivity, and 71% specificity. CONCLUSION: At HRs ≤ 60 bpm, U-HRCT was more accurate in the imaging of coronary arteries than CRCT. The upper limit of the optimal HR in CCTA with U-HRCT was approx. 60 bpm.
Authors: Konstantin Nikolaou; Andreas Knez; Carsten Rist; Bernd J Wintersperger; Alexander Leber; Thorsten Johnson; Maximilian F Reiser; Christoph R Becker Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2006-07 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Matthew J Budoff; David Dowe; James G Jollis; Michael Gitter; John Sutherland; Edward Halamert; Markus Scherer; Raye Bellinger; Arthur Martin; Robert Benton; Augustin Delago; James K Min Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2008-11-18 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Jerry R Greenfield; Jeffrey W Miller; Julia M Keogh; Elana Henning; Julie H Satterwhite; Gregory S Cameron; Beatrice Astruc; John P Mayer; Soren Brage; Teik Choon See; David J Lomas; Stephen O'Rahilly; I Sadaf Farooqi Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2008-12-17 Impact factor: 91.245