Patient Preparation and Scanning Techniques

Radiologic Clinics of North America

Volumn 48, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 675-686

  Taylor, Carolyn M ^a   Blum, Andrew ^b   Abbara, Suhny ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

^b MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL   (United States)

Author keywords

Artifacts; Patient preparation; Scanning techniques

Indexed keywords

BETA ADRENERGIC RECEPTOR BLOCKING AGENT; GLYCERYL TRINITRATE; IVABRADINE; VERAPAMIL;

ARTERY CALCIFICATION; BRADYCARDIA; BRONCHOSPASM; CARDIAC COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY ANGIOGRAPHY; CLINICAL PROTOCOL; COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHIC ANGIOGRAPHY; CONTRAST ENHANCEMENT; CORONARY ARTERY DISEASE; DRUG CONTRAINDICATION; ELECTRIC CURRENT; ELECTRIC POTENTIAL; ELECTROCARDIOGRAM; HEART ARRHYTHMIA; HEART BLOCK; HEART FAILURE; HEART RATE; HUMAN; HYPOTENSION; IMAGE PROCESSING; IMAGE QUALITY; IMAGE RECONSTRUCTION; IN-STENT RESTENOSIS; PATIENT ASSESSMENT; PATIENT CARE; PATIENT POSITIONING; PATIENT SELECTION; PREMEDICATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIATION DOSE; RADIODIAGNOSIS; REVIEW; THORAX PAIN; VASCULAR ACCESS;

ANTHROPOMETRY; ARTIFACTS; CALCINOSIS; CONTRAST MEDIA; CORONARY ARTERY DISEASE; ELECTROCARDIOGRAPHY; HEART RATE; HUMANS; PATIENT POSITIONING; PATIENT SELECTION; PREMEDICATION; RADIATION DOSAGE; RADIATION PROTECTION; STENTS; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED;

EID: 77955535244     PISSN: 00338389     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.rcl.2010.04.011     Document Type: Review

References (48)

1. Hendel R.C., Patel M.R., Kramer C.M., et al. ACCF/ACR/SCCT/SCMR/ASNC/NASCI/SCAI/SIR 2006 appropriateness criteria for cardiac computed tomography and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Quality Strategic Directions Committee Appropriateness Criteria Working Group, American College of Radiology, Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance, American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, North American Society for Cardiac Imaging, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and Society of Interventional Radiology. J Am Coll Cardiol 2006, 48(7):1475-1497.
2. Achenbach S., Marwan M., Ropers D., et al. Coronary computed tomography angiography with a consistent dose below 1 mSv using prospectively electrocardiogram-triggered high-pitch spiral acquisition. Eur Heart J 2009, [Epub ahead of print]. 10.1093/eurheartj/ehp470.
3. Raff G.L., Chinnaiyan K.M., Share D.A., et al. Radiation dose from cardiac computed tomography before and after implementation of radiation dose-reduction techniques. JAMA 2009, 301(22):2340-2348.
4. Leschka S., Stinn B., Schmid F., et al. Dual source CT coronary angiography in severely obese patients: trading off temporal resolution and image noise. Invest Radiol 2009, 44(11):720-727.
5. Yoshimura N., Sabir A., Kubo T., et al. Correlation between image noise and body weight in coronary CTA with 16-row MDCT. Acad Radiol 2006, 13:324-328.
6. Alkadhi H., Scheffel H., Desbiolles L., et al. Dual-source computed tomography coronary angiography: influence of obesity, calcium load, and heart rate on diagnostic accuracy. Eur Heart J 2008, 29(6):766-776.
7. Brink M., de Lange F., Oostveen L.J., et al. Arm raising at exposure-controlled multidetector trauma CT of thoracoabdominal region: higher image quality, lower radiation dose. Radiology 2008, 249:661-670.
8. Einstein A.J., Henzlova M.J., Rajagopalan S. Estimating risk of cancer associated with radiation exposure from 64-slice computed tomography coronary angiography. JAMA 2007, 298:317-323.
9. Hausleiter J., Meyer T., Hermann F., et al. Estimated radiation dose associated with cardiac CT angiography. JAMA 2009, 301(5):500-507.
10. Kruger S., Mahnken A.H., Sinha A.M., et al. Multislice spiral computed tomography for the detection of coronary stent restenosis and patency. Int J Cardiol 2003, 89:167-172.
11. Van Mieghem C.A., Cademartiri F., Mollet N.R., et al. Multislice spiral computed tomography for the evaluation of stent patency after left main coronary artery stenting: a comparison with conventional coronary angiography and intravascular ultrasound. Circulation 2006, 114:645-653.
12. Carbone I., Francone M., Algeri E., et al. Non-invasive evaluation of coronary artery stent patency with retrospectively ECG-gated 64-slice CT angiography. Eur Radiol 2008, 18:234-243.
13. Available at:, Accessed December 9, 2009. http://www.scct.org/advocacy/index.cfm.
14. Mark D.B., Berman D.S., Budoff M.J., et al. ACCF/ACR/AHA/NASCI/SAIP/SCAI/SCCT 2010 Expert consensus document on coronary computed tomographic angiography. J Am Coll Cardiol 2010, 55(23):2663-2699.
15. Ropers D., Pohle F.K., Kuettner A., et al. Diagnostic accuracy of noninvasive coronary angiography in patients after bypass surgery using 64-slice spiral computed tomography with 330-ms gantry rotation. Circulation 2006, 114:2334-2341.
16. Wolak A., Gutstein A., Cheng V.Y., et al. Dual-source coronary computed tomography angiography in patients with atrial fibrillation: initial experience. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr 2008, 2(3):172-180.
17. Marshall G.D., Lieberman P.L. Comparison of three pretreatment protocols to prevent anaphylactoid reactions to radiocontrast media. Ann Allergy 1991, 67(1):70-74.
18. Cheitlin M.D., Hutter A.M., Brindis R.G., et al. ACC/AHA expert consensus document. Use of sildenafil (Viagra) in patients with cardiovascular disease. American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association. J Am Coll Cardiol 1999, 33(1):273-282.
19. Kloner R.A., Hutter A.M., Emmick J.T., et al. Time course of the interaction between tadalafil and nitrates. J Am Coll Cardiol 2003, 42(10):1855-1860.
20. Abbara S., Arbab-Zadeh A., Callister T.Q., et al. SCCT guidelines for performance of coronary computed tomographic angiography: a report of the Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography Guidelines Committee. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr 2009, 3(3):190-204.
21. Dewey M., Hoffmann H., Hamm B. Multislice CT coronary angiography: effect of sublingual nitroglycerine on the diameter of coronary arteries. Rofo 2006, 178:600-604.
22. Leschka S., Wildermuth S., Boehm T., et al. Noninvasive coronary angiography with 64-section CT: effect of average heart rate and heart rate variability on image quality. Radiology 2006, 241:378-385.
23. Pannu H.K., Alvarez W., Fishman E.K. β-Blockers for cardiac CT: a primer for the radiologist. Am J Roentgenol 2006, 186:S341-S345.
24. Johnson P.T., Eng J., Pannu H.K., et al. 64-MDCT Angiography of the coronary arteries: nationwide survey of patient preparation practice. Am J Roentgenol 2008, 190:743-747.
25. Roberts W.T., Wright A.R., Timmis J.B., et al. Safety and efficacy of a rate control protocol for cardiac CT. Br J Radiol 2009, 82:267-271.
26. Earls J.P., Schrack E.C. Prospectively gated low-dose CCTA: 24 months experience in more than 2,000 clinical cases. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 2009, 25(2):177-187.
27. Matt D., Scheffel H., Leschka S., et al. Dual-source CT coronary angiography: image quality, mean heart rate, and heart rate variability. Am J Roentgenol 2007, 189:567-573.
28. 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 2007, 50(25):2393-2398.
29. Wang G., Vannier M.W. Spatial variation of section sensitivity profile in spiral computed tomography. Med Phys 1994, 21:1491-1497.
30. Ohnesorge B., Flohr T., Becker C., et al. Cardiac imaging by means of electrocardiographically gated multisection spiral CT: initial experience. Radiology 2000, 217:564-571.
31. Horiguchi J., Shen Y., Hirai N., et al. Timing on 16-slice scanner and implications for 64-slice cardiac CT: do you start scanning immediately after breath hold?. Acad Radiol 2006, 13:173-176.
32. Pundziute G., Schuijf J.D., Jukema J.W., et al. Impact of coronary calcium score on diagnostic accuracy of multislice computed tomography coronary angiography for detection of coronary artery disease. J Nucl Cardiol 2007, 14:36-43.
33. Cordeiro M.A., Miller J.M., Schmidt A., et al. Non-invasive half millimetre 32 detector row computed tomography angiography accurately excludes significant stenoses in patients with advanced coronary artery disease and high calcium scores. Heart 2006, 92:589-597.
34. Kim K.P., Einstein A.J., de Gonzalez A.B. Coronary artery calcification screening: estimated radiation dose and cancer risk. Arch Intern Med 2009, 169(13):1188-1194.
35. Gibbons R.J., Gerber T.C. Calcium scoring with computed tomography-what is the radiation risk?. Arch Intern Med 2009, 169(13):1185-1187.
36. Husmann L., Valenta I., Gaemperli O., et al. Feasibility of low-dose coronary CT angiography: first experience with prospective ECG-gating. Eur Heart J 2008, 29:191-197.
37. Shuman W.P., Branch K.R., May J.M., et al. Prospective versus retrospective ECG gating for 64-detector CTof the coronary arteries: comparison of image quality and patient radiation dose. Radiology 2008, 248:431-437.
38. Hirai N., Horiguchi J., Fujioka C., 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.
39. Gutstein A., Wolak A., Lee C., et al. Predicting success of prospective and retrospective gating with dual-source coronary computed tomography angiography: development of selection criteria and initial experience. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr 2008, 2:81-90.
40. Steigner M.L., Otero H.J., Cai T., et al. Narrowing the phase window width in prospectively ECG-gated single heart beat 320-detector row coronary CT angiography. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 2009, 25(1):85-90.
41. Rybicki F.J., Otero H.J., Steigner M.L., et al. Initial evaluation of coronary images from 320-detector row computed tomography. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 2008, 24:535-546.
42. Scheffel H., Alkadhi H., Leschka S., et al. Low-dose CT coronary angiography in the step-and shoot mode: diagnostic performance. Heart 2008, 94:1132-1137.
43. Pontone G., Andreini D., Bartorelli A.L., et al. Diagnostic accuracy of coronary computed tomography angiography: a comparison between prospective and retrospective electrocardiogram triggering. J Am Coll Cardiol 2009, 54(4):346-355.
44. Achenbach A., Marwan M., Schepis T., et al. High-pitch spiral acquisition: a new scan mode for coronary CT angiography. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr 2009, 3(2):117-121.
45. Earls J.P., Berman E.L., Urban B.A., 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.
46. Rehani M.M., Bongartz G., Kalender W., et al. Managing patient dose in computed tomography. Ann ICRP 2000, 30(4):7-45.
47. Bischoff B., Hein F., Meyer T., et al. Impact of a reduced tube voltage on CT angiography and radiation dose: results of the PROTECTION I study. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 2009, 2:940-946.
48. Abada H.T., Larchez C., Daoud B., et al. MDCT of the coronary arteries: feasibility of low-dose CT with ECG pulsed tube current modulation to reduce radiation dose. Am J Roentgenol 2006, 186(Suppl 2):387-390.