Adaptive prospective ECG-triggered sequence coronary angiography in dual-source CT without heart rate control: 
Image quality and diagnostic performance

Pan,Chang-Jie; Qian,Nong; Wang,Tao; Tang,Xiao-Qiang; Xue,Yue-Jun

doi:10.3892/etm.2012.828

Adaptive prospective ECG-triggered sequence coronary angiography in dual-source CT without heart rate control: Image quality and diagnostic performance

Authors:
- Chang-Jie Pan
- Nong Qian
- Tao Wang
- Xiao-Qiang Tang
- Yue-Jun Xue
View Affiliations

Affiliations: Department of Radiology, The Second People's Hospital of Changzhou, Nanjing Medical University, Changzhou, Jiangsu 213003, P.R. China
Published online on: November 23, 2012 https://doi.org/10.3892/etm.2012.828
Pages: 636-642

Metrics: Total Views: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Metrics: Total PDF Downloads: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Cited By (CrossRef): 0 citations Loading Articles...

Abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of using second generation dual-source CT (DSCT) to obtain high quality images and diagnostic performance and to reduce the radiation dose in adaptive prospective electrocardiography (ECG)-triggered sequence (CorAdSeq) CT coronary angiography (CTCA) without heart rate control. No prescan β-blockers were administered. Un-enhanced CT and CTCA with adaptive prospective CorAdSeq scanning without heart rate control were performed in 683 consecutive patients divided into two body mass index (BMI) groups: BMI <25 kg/m2 (group A, n=412) and BMI ≥25 kg/m2 (group B, n=271). The image quality and quantitative stenosis of all coronary segments with a diameter ≥1 mm were assessed. The mean heart rate (MHR), heart rate variability (HRV) and radiation dose values were recorded. In 426 cases, the diagnostic performance was evaluated using quantitative conventional coronary angiography as the reference standard. Diagnostic image quality was obtained in 98.5% of segments in group A and in 98.8% of segments in group B, with no significant differences between the groups. No correlations were observed between the image quality score and MHR or HRV (P=0.492, P=0.564, respectively). The effective radiation doses in groups A and B were 2.57±1.01 mSv and 6.36±1.88 mSv, respectively. The sensitivities and specificities of diagnosing coronary heart disease per patient were 99.6% and 97.8% in group A and 99.5% and 97.5% in group B, respectively (P>0.05). Adaptive prospective CorAdSeq scanning, without heart rate control, by second generation DSCT had a high image quality and diagnostic performance for coronary artery stenosis with lower radiation doses.

View Figures

View References

1.	Schoepf UJ, Zwerner PL, Savino G, Herzog C, Kerl JM and Costello P: Coronary CT angiography. Radiology. 244:48–63. 2007. View Article : Google Scholar
2.	Budoff MJ, Achenbach S, Blumenthal RS, et al: Assessment of coronary artery disease by cardiac computed tomography: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association Committee on Cardiovascular Imaging and Intervention, Council on Cardiovascular Radiology and Intervention, and Committee on Cardiac Imaging, Council on Clinical Cardiology. Circulation. 114:1761–1791. 2006.
3.	Scheffel H, Alkadhi H, Plass A, et al: Accuracy of dual-source CT coronary angiography: first experience in a high pre-test probability population without heart rate control. Eur Radiol. 16:2739–2747. 2006.PubMed/NCBI
4.	Brenner DJ and Hall EJ: Computed tomography - an increasing source of radiation exposure. N Engl J Med. 357:2277–2284. 2007.PubMed/NCBI
5.	Hausleiter J, Meyer T, Hermann F, et al: Estimated radiation dose associated with cardiac CT angiography. JAMA. 301:500–507. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
6.	Cademartiri F, Mollet NR, Runza G, et al: Improving diagnostic accuracy of MDCT coronary angiography in patients with mild heart rhythm irregularities using ECG editing. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 186:634–638. 2006. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
7.	Shuman WP, Branch KR, May JM, et al: Prospective versus retrospective ECG gating for 64-detector CT of the coronary arteries: comparison of image quality and patient radiation dose. Radiology. 248:431–437. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
8.	Herzog BA, Wyss CA, Husmann L, et al: First head-to-head comparison of effective radiation dose from low-dose 64-slice CT with prospective ECG-triggering versus invasive coronary angiography. Heart. 95:1656–1661. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
9.	Scheffel H, Alkadhi H, Leschka S, et al: Low-dose CT coronary angiography in the step-and-shoot mode: diagnostic performance. Heart. 94:1132–1137. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
10.	Mulkens TH, Bellinck P, Baeyaert M, et al: Use of an automatic exposure control mechanism for dose optimization in multidetector row CT examinations: clinical evaluation. Radiology. 237:213–223. 2005. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
11.	Austen WG, Edwards JE, Frye RL, et al: A reporting system on patients evaluated for coronary artery disease. Report of the Ad Hoc Committee for Grading of Coronary Artery Disease, Council on Cardiovascular Surgery, American Heart Association. Circulation. 51(Suppl 4): 5–40. 1975. View Article : Google Scholar
12.	Earls JP, Berman EL, Urban BA, et al: Prospectively gated transverse coronary CT angiography versus retrospectively gated helical technique: improved image quality and reduced radiation dose. Radiology. 246:742–753. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar
13.	Nakayama Y, Awai K, Funama Y, et al: Lower tube voltage reduces contrast material and radiation doses on 16-MDCT aortography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 187:W490–W497. 2006. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
14.	Valentin J; International Commission on Radiation Protection: Managing patient dose in multi-detector computed tomography (MDCT). ICRP Publication 102 Ann ICRP. 37:1–79. 2007.PubMed/NCBI
15.	Lang RM, Bierig M, Devereux RB, et al: Recommendations for chamber quantification: a report from the American Society of Echocardiography’s Guidelines and Standards Committee and the Chamber Quantification Writing Group, developed in conjunction with the European Association of Echocardiography, a branch of the European Society of Cardiology. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 18:1440–1463. 2005.PubMed/NCBI
16.	Ropers U, Ropers D, Pflederer T, et al: Influence of heart rate on the diagnostic accuracy of dual-source computed tomography coronary angiography. J Am Coll Cardiol. 50:2393–2398. 2007.PubMed/NCBI
17.	Johnson TR, Nikolaou K, Wintersperger BJ, et al: Dual-source CT cardiac imaging: initial experience. Eur Radiol. 16:1409–1415. 2006.PubMed/NCBI
18.	Deetjen A, Möllmann S, Conradi G, et al: Use of automatic exposure control in multislice computed tomography of the coronaries: comparison of 16-slice and 64-slice scanner data with conventional coronary angiography. Heart. 93:1040–1043. 2007. View Article : Google Scholar
19.	Fink C, Krissak R, Henzler T, et al: Radiation dose at coronary CT angiography: second-generation dual-source CT versus single-source 64-MDCT and first-generation dual-source CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 196:W550–W557. 2011.PubMed/NCBI
20.	Lu B, Lu JG, Sun ML, et al: Comparison of diagnostic accuracy and radiation dose between prospective triggering and retrospective gated coronary angiography by dual-source computed tomography. Am J Cardiol. 107:1278–1284. 2011.PubMed/NCBI