We have located links that may give you full text access.
COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
Radiation dose reduction and coronary assessability of prospective electrocardiogram-gated computed tomography coronary angiography: comparison with retrospective electrocardiogram-gated helical scan.
Journal of the American College of Cardiology 2008 October 29
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate radiation dose and coronary assessability of a prospective electrocardiogram (ECG)-gated scan by 64-slice multidetector (row) computed tomography (MDCT)-coronary angiography (CA) compared with a retrospective ECG-gated helical scan.
BACKGROUND: The 64-slice MDCT-CA has been widely used; however, a high radiation dose by 64-slice MDCT-CA has been reported. Prospective ECG-gated scan using "step-and-shoot" protocol can reduce radiation exposure effectively.
METHODS: MDCT-CA was performed in 229 consecutive patients. Fifty-six patients were excluded because of higher heart rates of >65 beats/min; of patients with heart rates
RESULTS: Coronary assessability of helical scan was 95.5% (1,303 of 1,364 segments), while that of prospective gating was 96.6% (1,053 of 1,089 segments), showing similar coronary assessability (p = 0.14). Sensitivity and specificity for coronary obstructive and occlusive lesions in the assessable segments were 97.0% (162 of 167) and 97.6% (1,109 of 1,136) by helical scan, while those of prospective gating were 96.4% (81 of 84, p = 0.84) and 98.5% (955 of 969, p = 0.12), respectively. Effective doses of helical scan and prospective gating were 21.1 +/- 6.7 mSv and 4.3 +/- 1.3 mSv, respectively (p < 0.0001), showing that prospective gating decreased radiation dose by 79% compared with that of helical scan.
CONCLUSIONS: MDCT-CA by prospective gating showed equivalent coronary assessability and diagnostic accuracy with decreased radiation dose in comparison with a retrospective ECG-gated helical scan with tube current modulation.
BACKGROUND: The 64-slice MDCT-CA has been widely used; however, a high radiation dose by 64-slice MDCT-CA has been reported. Prospective ECG-gated scan using "step-and-shoot" protocol can reduce radiation exposure effectively.
METHODS: MDCT-CA was performed in 229 consecutive patients. Fifty-six patients were excluded because of higher heart rates of >65 beats/min; of patients with heart rates
RESULTS: Coronary assessability of helical scan was 95.5% (1,303 of 1,364 segments), while that of prospective gating was 96.6% (1,053 of 1,089 segments), showing similar coronary assessability (p = 0.14). Sensitivity and specificity for coronary obstructive and occlusive lesions in the assessable segments were 97.0% (162 of 167) and 97.6% (1,109 of 1,136) by helical scan, while those of prospective gating were 96.4% (81 of 84, p = 0.84) and 98.5% (955 of 969, p = 0.12), respectively. Effective doses of helical scan and prospective gating were 21.1 +/- 6.7 mSv and 4.3 +/- 1.3 mSv, respectively (p < 0.0001), showing that prospective gating decreased radiation dose by 79% compared with that of helical scan.
CONCLUSIONS: MDCT-CA by prospective gating showed equivalent coronary assessability and diagnostic accuracy with decreased radiation dose in comparison with a retrospective ECG-gated helical scan with tube current modulation.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.Journal of Personalized Medicine 2024 Februrary 4
Molecular Targets of Novel Therapeutics for Diabetic Kidney Disease: A New Era of Nephroprotection.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 4
Perioperative echocardiographic strain analysis: what anesthesiologists should know.Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia 2024 April 11
The 'Ten Commandments' for the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of endocarditis.European Heart Journal 2024 April 18
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app