Academic Radiology
Volume 17, Issue 9 , Pages 1122-1127 , September 2010

Post-CABG Coronary CT Angiography: Radiation Dose and Graft Image Quality in Retrospective Versus Prospective ECG Gating

Received 1 March 2010 ,Accepted 15 April 2010.

References 

  1. Raff GL, Gallagher MJ, O'Neill WW, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of non-invasive coronary angiography using 64-slice spiral computed tomography. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005;46:552–557
  2. Leber AW, Becker A, Knez A, et al. Accuracy of 64-slice computed tomography to classify and quantify plaque volumes in the proximal coronary system: a comparative study using intravascular ultrasound. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006;47:672–677
  3. Hoffmann U, Moselewski F, Cury RC, et al. Predictive value of 16-slice multidetector spiral computed tomography to detect significant obstructive coronary artery disease in patients at high risk for coronary artery disease. Circulation. 2004;110:2638–2643
  4. Mollet NR, Cademartiri F, van Mieghem CAG, et al. High-resolution spiral computed tomography coronary angiography in patients referred for diagnostic conventional coronary angiography. Circulation. 2005;112:2318–2323
  5. Hoffmann MHK, Shi H, Schmitz BL, et al. Noninvasive coronary angiography with multislice computed tomography. JAMA. 2005;293:2471–2478
  6. Leber A, Knez A, von Ziegler F, et al. Quantification of obstructive and nonobstructive coronary lesions by 64-slice computed tomography. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005;46:147–154
  7. Miller JM, Rochitte CE, Dewey M, et al. Diagnostic performance of coronary angiography by 64-row CT. N Engl J Med. 2008;359:2324–2336
  8. Achenbach S, Ulzheimer S, Baum U, et al. Noninvasive coronary angiography by retrospectively ECG-gated multislice spiral CT. Circulation. 2000;102:2823
  9. 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. 2008;246:742–753
  10. 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
  11. Knowles NG, Patel S, Kazerooni EA. Cardiac CT for acute chest pain in the emergency department: advantages of prospective triggering. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2009;25(suppl):255–265
  12. Gopal A, Mao SS, Karlsberg D, et al. Radiation reduction with prospective ECG-triggering acquisition using 64-multidetector computed tomographic angiography. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2009;25:405–416
  13. 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. 2008;248:431–437
  14. Hamon M, Lepage O, Malagutti P, et al. Diagnostic performance of 16- and 64-section spiral CT for coronary artery bypass graft assessment: meta-analysis. Radiology. 2008;247:679–686
  15. Jakobs TF, Becker CR, Ohnesorge B, et al. Multislice helical CT of the heart with retrospective ECG gating: reduction of radiation exposure by ECG-controlled tube current modulation. Eur Radiol. 2002;12:1081–1086
  16. Bongartz G, Golding SJ, Jurik AJ, et al. European guidelines for multislice computed tomography: report EUR 16262 EN 2004. Luxembourg: European Commission; 2004;
  17. Soeken KL, Prescott PA. Issues of the use of kappa to estimate reliability. Med Care. 1986;24:733–741
  18. Hausleiter J, Meyer T, Hermann F, et al. estimated radiation dose associated with cardiac CT angiography. JAMA. 2009;301:500–507
  19. Hamon M, Biondi-Zoccai G, Malagutti P, et al. Diagnostic performance of multislice spiral computed tomography of coronary arteries as compared against conventional invasive coronary angiography: a meta-analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006;48:1896–1910
  20. Yamamoto M, Kimura F, Niinami H, et al. Noninvasive assessment of off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery by 16-channel multidetector-row computed tomography. Ann Thorac Surg. 2006;81:820–827
  21. Hurwitz LM, Reiman RE, Yoshizumi TT, et al. Radiation dose from contemporary cardiothoracic multidetect CT protocols with an anthropomorphic female phantom: implications for cancer induction. Radiology. 2007;245:742–750
  22. Committee to Assess Health Risks From Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation, National Research Council. Health risk from exposure to low levels of ionizing radiation: BEIR VII phase 2. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2006;
  23. 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
  24. 1990 recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. Ann ICRP. 1990;21-1-201
  25. Kim KP, Einstein AJ. Berrington de González A. Coronary artery calcification screening: estimated radiation dose and cancer risk. Arch Intern Med. 2009;169:1188–1194
  26. Brenner DJ, Hall EJ. Computed tomography—an increasing source of radiation exposure. N Engl J Med. 2007;357:2277–2284
  27. Scanlon PJ, Faxon DP, Audet A, et al. 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. 1999;33:1756–1824
  28. Takakuwa KM, Halpern EJ. Evaluation of a “triple rule-out” coronary CT angiography protocol: use of 64-Section CT in low-to-moderate risk emergency department patients suspected of having acute coronary syndrome. Radiology. 2008;248:438–446
  29. Takakuwa KM, Halpern EJ, Gingold EL, et al. Radiation dose in a “triple rule-out” coronary CT angiography protocol of emergency department patients using 64-MDCT: the impact of ECG-based tube current modulation on age, sex, and body mass index. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009;192:866–872
  30. 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
  31. 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;50:2393–2398

PII: S1076-6332(10)00232-1

doi: 10.1016/j.acra.2010.04.011

Academic Radiology
Volume 17, Issue 9 , Pages 1122-1127 , September 2010

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution