Prospective ECG-triggered axial CT at 140-kV tube voltage improves coronary in-stent restenosis visibility at a lower radiation dose compared with conventional retrospective ECG-gated helical CT

European Radiology

Volumn 19, Issue 10, 2009, Pages 2363-2372

  Horiguchi, Jun ^a   Fujioka, Chikako ^a   Kiguchi, Masao ^a   Kohno, Shingo ^a   Yamamoto, Hideya ^b   Kitagawa, Toshiro ^b   Ito, Katsuhide ^b  

^a HIROSHIMA UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Japan)

^b HIROSHIMA UNIVERSITY   (Japan)

Author keywords

Coronary; CTA; Phantom; Stent

Indexed keywords

ARTERY DIAMETER; ARTICLE; COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHIC ANGIOGRAPHY; CONTROLLED STUDY; ELECTRIC POTENTIAL; ELECTROCARDIOGRAM; GATED IMAGING; HEART RATE; IMAGE ANALYSIS; IMAGE QUALITY; IMAGING SYSTEM; IN-STENT RESTENOSIS; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MULTIDETECTOR COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY; PHANTOM; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIATION DEPTH DOSE; RADIATION DOSE; SIGNAL NOISE RATIO; VISIBILITY;

BODY BURDEN; CARDIAC-GATED IMAGING TECHNIQUES; CORONARY RESTENOSIS; GRAFT OCCLUSION, VASCULAR; HUMANS; PHANTOMS, IMAGING; RADIATION DOSAGE; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED;

EID: 70349871354     PISSN: 09387994     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00330-009-1419-1     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Scanlon PJ, Faxon DP, Audet AM et al (1999) ACC/AHA guidelines for coronary angiography: A report of the American College of Cardiology/ American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee on Coronary Angiography) developed in collaboration with the Society for Cardiac Angiography and Interventions. J Am Coll Cardiol 33:1756-1824
2. Hamon M, Champ-Rigot L, Morello R, Riddell JW, Hamon M (2008) Diagnostic accuracy of in-stent coronary restenosis detection with multislice spiral computed tomography: A meta-analysis. Eur Radiol 18:217-225
3. Schuijf JD, Pundziute G, Jukema JW et al (2007) Evaluation of patients with previous coronary stent implantation with 64-section CT. Radiology 245:410-423
4. Das KM, El-Menyar AA, Salam AM et al (2007) Contrast-enhanced 64-section coronary multidetector CT angiography versus conventional coronary angiography for stent assessment. Radiology 245:424-432
5. Carrabba N, Bamoshmoosh M, Carusi LM et al (2007) Usefulness of 64-slice multidetector computed tomography for detecting drug eluting in-stent restenosis. Am J Cardiol 100:1754-1758
6. Hecht HS, Zaric M, Zaric V, Lubarsky L, Prakash M, Roubin G (2008) Usefulness of 64-detector computed tomographic angiography for diagnosing in-stent restenosis in native coronary arteries. Am J Cardiol 101:820-824
7. Manghat N, Lingen RV, Hewson P et al (2008) Usefulness of 64-detector row computed tomography for evaluation of intracoronary stents in symptomatic patients with suspected in-stent restenosis. Am J Cardiol 101:1567-1573
8. Suzuki J, Furui S, Kuwahara S et al (2007) Assessment of coronary stent in vitro on multislice computed tomography angiography: Improved in-stent visibility by the use of 140-kV tube voltage. J Comput Assist Tomogr 31:414-421
9. Horiguchi J, Kiguchi M, Fujioka C et al (2008) Radiation dose, image quality, stenosis measurement, and CT densitometry using ECG-triggered coronary 64-MDCT angiography. A Phantom Study AJR 190:315-320
10. Hirai N, Horiguchi J, Fujioka C et al (2008) Prospective electrocardiography-triggered versus retrospective electrocardiography-gated 64-slice coronary CT angiography: Image quality, stenoses assessment and radiation dose. Radiology 248:424-430
11. Hsieh J, Londt J, Vass M, Li J, Tang X, Okerlund D (2006) Step-and-shoot data acquisition and reconstruction for cardiac x-ray computed tomography. Med Phys 33:4236-4248
12. Cademartiri F, Mollet N, Lemos PA et al (2005) Usefulness of multislice computed tomographic coronary angiography to assess instent restenosis. Am J Cardiol 96:799-802
13. Maintz D, Seifarth H, Raupach R et al (2006) 64-slice multidetector coronary CT angiography: In vitro evaluation of 68 different stents. Eur Radiol 16:818-826
14. Seifarth H, Özgün M, Raupach R et al (2006) 64- versus 16-slice CT angiography for coronary artery stent assessment. In vitro experience. Invest Radiol 41:22-27
15. Seifarth H, Raupach R, Schaller S et al (2005) Assessment of coronary artery stents using 16-slice MDCT angiography: Evaluation of a dedicated reconstruction kernel and a noise reduction filter. Eur Radiol 15:721-726
16. Menzel H, Schibilla H, Teunen D(eds) (2000) European guidelines on quality criteria for computed tomography. European Commission, Luxembourg. Available at http://www.drs.dk/guidelines/ct/quality/ index.htm. Accessed Dec 2008
17. Cohen J (1960) A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ Psychol Meas 20:37-46
18. Barrett JF, Keat N (2004) Artifacts in CT: Recognition and avoidance. RadioGraphics 24:1679-1691
19. Husmann L, Valenta I, Gaemperli O (2008) Feasibility of low-dose coronary CT angiography: First experience with prospective ECG-gating. Eur Heart J 29:191-197
20. Groen JM, Greuter MJW, van Ooijen PMA, Willems TP, Oudkerk M (2006) Initial results on visualization of coronary artery stents at multiple heart rates on a moving heart phantom using 64-MDCT. JCAT 30:812-817
21. Boll DT, Merkle EM, Paulson EK, Fleiter TR (2008) Coronary stent patency: Dual-energy multidetector CT assessment in a pilot study with anthropomorphic phantom. Radiology 247:687-695
22. Mahnken AH, Seyfarth T, Flohr T et al (2005) Flat-panel detector computed tomography for the assessment of coronary artery stents: phantom study in comparison with 16-slice spiral computed tomography. Invest Radiol 40:8-13
23. Rybicki FJ, Otero HJ, Steigner ML et al (2008) Initial evaluation of coronary images from 320-detector row computed tomography. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 24:535-546