Prospective versus retrospective ECG-gated 64-detector coronary CT angiography for evaluation of coronary artery bypass graft patency: Comparison of image quality, radiation dose and diagnostic accuracy

International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging

Volumn 27, Issue 5, 2011, Pages 657-667

  Lee, Jae Hwan ^a   Chun, Eun Ju ^a   Choi, Sang Il ^a   Vembar, Mani ^b   Lim, Cheong ^a   Park, Kay Hyun ^a   Choi, Dong Ju ^a  

^a Seoul National University Bundang Hospital   (South Korea)

^b PHILIPS HEALTHCARE   (United States)

Author keywords

CABG; Prospective coronary CT angiography; Radiation dose

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ANGIOCARDIOGRAPHY; ARTICLE; CARDIAC GATED IMAGING; COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHIC ANGIOGRAPHY; CONTROLLED STUDY; CORONARY ARTERY BYPASS GRAFT; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC TEST ACCURACY STUDY; FEMALE; GRAFT OCCLUSION; GRAFT PATENCY; HUMAN; IMAGE DISPLAY; IMAGE QUALITY; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MULTIDETECTOR COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY; RADIATION DOSE; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; CARDIAC-GATED IMAGING TECHNIQUES; CORONARY ANGIOGRAPHY; CORONARY ARTERY BYPASS; FEMALE; GRAFT OCCLUSION, VASCULAR; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; RADIATION DOSAGE; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; REPUBLIC OF KOREA; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; TOMOGRAPHY, SPIRAL COMPUTED; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED; TREATMENT OUTCOME; VASCULAR PATENCY;

EID: 80054875117     PISSN: 15695794     EISSN: 15730743     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10554-011-9904-4     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Fitzgibbon GM, Kafka HP, Leach AJ et al (1996) Coronary bypass graft fate and patient outcome: angiographic fol-low-up of 5, 065 grafts related to survival and reoperation in 1, 388 patients during 25 years. J Am Coll Cardiol 28(3):616-626 (Pubitemid 26288642)
2. Davis K, Kennedy JW, Kemp HG Jr et al (1979) Complications of coronary arteriography from the Collaborative Study of Coronary Artery Surgery (CASS). Circulation 59(6):1105-1112 (Pubitemid 9178546)
3. Wyman RM, Safian RD, Portway V et al (1988) Current complications of diagnostic and therapeutic cardiac cath-eterization. J Am Coll Cardiol 12(6):1400-1406
4. Hamon M, Lepage O, Malagutti P et al (2008) Diagnostic performance of 16- and 64-section spiral CT for coronary artery bypass graft assessment: meta-analysis. Radiology 247(3):679-686
5. Malagutti P, Nieman K, Meijboom WB et al (2007) Use of 64-slice CT in symptomatic patients after coronary bypass surgery: evaluation of grafts and coronary arteries. Eur Heart J 28(15):1879-1885 (Pubitemid 47236635)
6. Hausleiter J, Meyer T, Hadamitzky M et al (2006) Radiation dose estimates from cardiac multislice computed tomography in daily practice: impact of different scanning protocols on effective dose estimates. Circulation 113(10): 1305-1310 (Pubitemid 43739452)
7. Nickoloff EL, Alderson PO (2007) A comparative study of thoracic radiation doses from 64-slice cardiac CT. Br J Radiol 80(955):537-544 (Pubitemid 47351081)
8. Meyer TS, Martinoff S, Hadamitzky M et al (2007) Improved noninvasive assessment of coronary artery bypass grafts with 64-slice computed tomographic angi-ography in an unselected patient population. J Am Coll Cardiol 49(9):946-950
9. Jabara R, Chronos N, Klein L et al (2007) Comparison of multidetector 64-slice computed tomographic angiography to coronary angiography to assess the patency of coronary artery bypass grafts. Am J Cardiol 99(11):1529-1534 (Pubitemid 46773024)
10. Earls JP, Berman EL, Urban BA et al (2008) Prospectively gated transverse coronary CT angiography versus retro-spectively gated helical technique: improved image quality and reduced radiation dose. Radiology 246(3):742-753
11. Earls JP, Schrack EC (2008) Prospectively gated low-dose CCTA: 24 months experience in more than 2, 000 clinical cases. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 25(suppl 2):177-187
12. Maruyama T, Takada M, Hasuike T et al (2008) Radiation dose reduction and coronary assessability of prospective electrocardiogram-gated computed tomography coronary angiography: comparison with retrospective electrocardio-gram-gated helical scan. J Am Coll Cardiol 52(18): 1450-1455
13. Shuman WP, Branch KR, May JM et al (2008) Prospective versus retrospective ECG gating for 64-detector CT of the coronary arteries: comparison of image quality and patient radiation dose. Radiology 248(2):431-437
14. Klass O, Jeltsch M, Feuerlein S et al (2009) Prospectively gated axial CT coronary angiography: preliminary expe-riences with a novel low-dose technique. Eur Radiol 19(4):829-836
15. Chazen JL, Prince MR, Yip R et al (2010) Post-CABG coronary CT angiography: radiation dose and graft image quality in retrospective versus prospective ECG gating. Acad Radiol 17(9):1122-1127
16. Machida H, Masukawa A, Tanaka I et al (2010) Prospec-tive electrocardiogram-gated axial 64-detector computed tomographic angiography vs retrospective gated helical technique to assess coronary artery bypass graft anasto-mosis: comparison of image quality and patient radiation dose. Circ J 74(4):735-740
17. Chun EJ, Lee W, Choi YH et al (2008) Effects of nitro-glycerin on the diagnostic accuracy of electrocardiogram-gated coronary computed tomography angiography. J Comput Assist Tomogr 32(1):86-92 (Pubitemid 351317324)
18. Ropers D, Pohle FK, Kuettner A et al (2006) Diagnostic accuracy of noninvasive coronary angiography in patients after bypass surgery using 64-slice spiral computed tomog-raphy with 330 ms gantry rotation. Circulation 114(22): 2334-2341, quiz 2334 (Pubitemid 44847450)
19. Willmann JK, Weishaupt D, Kobza R et al (2004) Coro-nary artery bypass grafts: ECG-gated multi-detector row CT angiography\-influence of image reconstruction interval on graft visibility. Radiology 232(2):568-577 (Pubitemid 38971301)
20. Hirai N, Horiguchi J, Fujioka C et al (2008) Prospective versus retrospective ECG-gated 64-detector coronary CT angiography: assessment of image quality, stenosis, and radiation dose. Radiology 248(2):424-430
21. Morin RL, Gerber TC, McCollough CH (2003) Radiation dose in computed tomography of the heart. Circulation 107(6):917-922 (Pubitemid 36241053)
22. Zeger SL, Liang KY, Albert PS (1988) Models for longi-tudinal data: a generalized estimating equation approach. Biometrics 44(4):1049-1060 (Pubitemid 19026037)
23. Herzog BA, Wyss CA, Husmann L et al (2009) 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(20):1656-1661
24. Leschka S, Wildermuth S, Boehm T et al (2006) Nonin-vasive coronary angiography with 64-section CT: effect of average heart rate and heart rate variability on image quality. Radiology 241(2):378-385 (Pubitemid 44632882)
25. Herzog BA, Husmann L, Burkhard N et al (2009) Low-dose CT coronary angiography using prospective ECG-triggering: impact of mean heart rate and heart rate vari-ability on image quality. Acad Radiol 16(1):15-21
26. Herzog C, Zwerner PL, Doll JR et al (2007) Significant coronary artery stenosis: comparison on per-patient and pervessel or per-segment basis at 64-section CT angiog-raphy. Radiology 244(1):112-120 (Pubitemid 46981964)