Prospective electrocardiogram-gated axial 64-detector computed tomographic angiography vs retrospective gated helical technique to assess coronary artery bypass graft anastomosis: Comparison of image quality and patient radiation dose

Circulation Journal

Volumn 74, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 735-740

  Machida, Haruhiko ^a   Masukawa, Ai ^a   Tanaka, Isao ^a   Fukui, Rika ^a   Suzuki, Kazufumi ^a   Ueno, Eiko ^a   Kodera, Kojiro ^a   Nakano, Kiyoharu ^a   Shen, Yun ^b  

^a TOKYO WOMEN'S MEDICAL UNIVERSITY   (Japan)

^b GE HEALTHCARE   (United States)

Author keywords

Computed tomographic angiography; Coronary artery bypass graft anastomosis; Image quality; Prospective electrocardiogram gating axial technique; Radiation dose

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CARDIAC GATED IMAGING; COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHIC ANGIOGRAPHY; CONTROLLED STUDY; CORONARY ARTERY BYPASS GRAFT; CORONARY ARTERY DISEASE; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; ELECTROCARDIOGRAM; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HEART RATE VARIABILITY; HUMAN; IMAGE ANALYSIS; IMAGE DISPLAY; IMAGE QUALITY; IMAGE RECONSTRUCTION; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MULTIDETECTOR COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY; RADIATION DOSE; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; SIGNAL NOISE RATIO; SPIRAL COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY;

AGED; ANASTOMOSIS, SURGICAL; CORONARY ANGIOGRAPHY; CORONARY ARTERY BYPASS; CORONARY ARTERY DISEASE; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; ELECTROCARDIOGRAPHY; FEMALE; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; RADIATION DOSAGE; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED;

EID: 77950684614     PISSN: 13469843     EISSN: 13474820     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1253/circj.CJ-09-0714     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Jinzaki M, Sato K, Tanami Y, Yamada M, Kuribayashi S, Anzai T, et al. Novel method of displaying coronary CT angiography: Angiographic view. Circ J 2006; 70: 1661-1662.
2. Jinzaki M, Yamada M, Sato K, Tanami Y, Anzai T, Sasaki K, et al. Overview image of the lumen and vessel wall in coronary CT angiography: Plaque-loaded angiographic view. Circ J 2008; 72: 671-673.
3. Jinzaki M, Sato K, Tanami Y, Yamada M, Anzai T, Kawamura A, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of angiographic view image for the detection of coronary artery stenoses by 64-detector row CT: A pilot study comparison with conventional post-processing methods and axial images alone. Circ J 2009; 73: 691-698.
4. Garcia MJ, Lessick J, Hoffmann MH; CATSCAN Study Investigators. Accuracy of 16-row multidetector computed tomography for the assessment of coronary artery stenosis. JAMA 2006; 296: 403-411.
5. Budoff MJ, Achenbach S, Blumenthal RS, Carr JJ, Goldin JG, Greenland P, et al. American Heart Association Committee on Cardiovascular Imaging and Intervention; American Heart Association Council on Cardiovascular Radiology and Intervention; American Heart Association Committee on Cardiac Imaging, Council on Clinical Cardiology: 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 Cardiac Imaging, Council on Clinical Cardiology. Circulation 2006; 114: 1761-1791.
6. Miller JM, Rochitte CE, Dewey M, Arbab-Zadeh A, Niinuma H, Gottlieb I, et al. Diagnostic performance of coronary angiography by 64-row CT. N Engl J Med 2008; 359: 2324-2336.
7. Earls JP, Berman EL, Urban BA, Curry CA, Lane JL, Jennings RS, et al. Prospectively gated transverse coronary CT angiography versus retrospectively gated helical technique: Improved image quality and reduced radiation dose. Radiology 2008; 246: 742-753.
8. Einstein AJ, Henzlova MJ, Rajagopalan S. Estimating risk of cancer associated with radiation exposure from 64-slice computed tomography coronary angiography. JAMA 2007; 298: 317-323.
9. Hsieh J, Londt J, Vass M, Li J, Tang X, Okerlund D. Step-and-shoot data acquisition and reconstruction for cardiac x-ray computed tomography. Med Phys 2006; 33: 4236-4248.
10. Shuman WP, Branch KR, May JM, Mitsumori LM, Lockhart DW, Dubinsky TJ, et al. Prospective versus retrospective ECG gating for 64-detector CT of the coronary arteries: Comparison of image quality and patient radiation dose. Radiology 2008; 248: 431-437.
11. Hirai N, Horiguchi J, Fujioka C, Kiguchi M, Yamamoto H, Matsuura N, et al. Prospective versus retrospective ECG-gated 64-detector coronary CT angiography: Assessment of image quality, stenosis, and radiation dose. Radiology 2008; 248: 424-430.
12. Schlosser T, Konorza T, Hunold P, Kühl H, Schmermund A, Barkhausen J. Noninvasive visualization of coronary artery bypass grafts using 16-detector row computed tomography. J Am Coll Cardiol 2004; 44: 1224-1229.
13. Chiurlia E, Menozzi M, Ratti C, Romagnoli R, Modena MG. Follow-up of coronary artery bypass graft patency by multislice computed tomography. Am J Cardiol 2005; 95: 1094-1097.
14. Yamamoto M, Kimura F, Niinami H, Suda Y, Ueno E, Takeuchi Y. Noninvasive assessment of off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery by 16-channel multidetector-row computed tomography. Ann Thorac Surg 2006; 81: 820-827.
15. Martuscelli E, Romagnoli A, Tomassini DM, Razzini C, Sperandio M, Simonetti G, et al. Evaluation of venous and arterial conduit patency by 16-slice spiral computed tomography. Circulation 2004; 110: 3234-3238.
16. Marano R, Liguori C, Rinaldi P, Storto ML, Politi MA, Savino G, et al. Coronary artery bypass grafts and MDCT imaging: What to know and what to look for. Eur Radiol 2007; 17: 3166-3178.
17. Matt D, Scheffel H, Leschka S, Flohr TG, Marincek B, Kaufmann PA, et al. Dual-source CT coronary angiography: Image quality, mean heart rate, and heart rate variability. Am J Roentgenol 2007; 189: 567-573.
18. Morin RL, Gerber TC, McCollough CH. Radiation dose in computed tomography of the heart. Circulation 2003; 107: 917-922.
19. Earls JP, Schrack EC. Prospectively gated low-dose CCTA: 24 months experience in more than 2,000 clinical cases. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 2008 [Epub ahead of print].
20. Yoshimura N, Sabir A, Kubo T, Lin PJ, Clouse ME, Hatabu H. Correlation between image noise and body weight in coronary CTA with 16-row MDCT. Acad Radiol 2006; 13: 324-328.
21. Tatsugami F, Husmann L, Herzog BA, Burkhard N, Valenta I, Gaemperli O, et al. Evaluation of a body mass index-adapted protocol for low-dose 64-MDCT coronary angiography with prospective ECG triggering. Am J Roentgenol 2009; 192: 635-638.
22. Hamon M, Lepage O, Malagutti P, Riddell JW, Morello R, Agostini D, et al. Diagnostic performance of 16-and 64-section spiral CT for coronary artery bypass graft assessment: Meta-analysis. Radiology 2008; 247: 679-686.
23. Hoffmann MH, Shi H, Manzke R, Schmid FT, De Vries L, Grass M, et al. Noninvasive coronary angiography with 16-detector row CT: Effect of heart rate. Radiology 2005; 234: 86-97.
24. Leschka S, Scheffel H, Husmann L, Gämperli O, Marincek B, Kaufmann PA, et al. Effect of decrease in heart rate variability on the diagnostic accuracy of 64-MDCT coronary angiography. Am J Roentgenol 2008; 190: 1583-1590.