Coronary Artery Bypass Grafts: ECG-gated Multi–Detector Row CT Angiography—Influence of Image Reconstruction Interval on Graft Visibility

PURPOSE: To evaluate the influence of different reconstruction intervals of retrospectively electrocardiographically (ECG)-gated multi–detector row computed tomographic (CT) angiography on image quality of different segments of various types of coronary artery bypass grafts.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty consecutive patients with 62 grafts underwent retrospectively ECG-gated four-channel multi–detector row CT angiography and conventional coronary angiography. Raw helical CT data were reconstructed at 0%–90% of the cardiac cycle in increments of 10%. Each graft was separated into three segments (proximal segment, graft body, and distal anastomosis). Three graft types were identified according to site of distal anastomosis. Two readers assessed image quality of segments and graft types. Effective radiation dose was calculated.

RESULTS: Best image quality of all segments was obtained at a reconstruction interval of 50%–70% of the cardiac cycle. Image quality of the proximal segment did not vary significantly with different reconstruction intervals (analysis of variance, P = .8), whereas image quality of the graft body and distal anastomosis changed significantly with varying reconstruction intervals (P < .001). Distal anastomosis and body of types 1 and 2 grafts were best seen at 60%–70% of the cardiac cycle, whereas distal anastomosis and body of type 3 grafts were best visualized at 50%. Accuracy of CT angiography for detection of graft patency was 94% for reader 1 and 95% for reader 2. Effective dose for CT was 11.4 mSv for both men and women. Mean effective dose for angiography was 2.1 mSv for men and women.

CONCLUSION: Optimal selection of reconstruction interval improves image quality of the graft body and of distal anastomosis in particular.

© RSNA, 2004


  • 1 Campeau L, Enjalbert M, Lesperance J, Vaislic C, Grondin CM, Bourassa MG. Atherosclerosis and late closure of aortocoronary saphenous vein grafts: sequential angiographic studies at 2 weeks, 1 year, 5 to 7 years, and 10 to 12 years after surgery. Circulation 1983; 68(3 pt 2):II1-II7. MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Grondin CM, Campeau L, Thornton JC, Engle JC, Cross FS, Schreiber H. Coronary artery bypass grafting with saphenous vein. Circulation 1989; 79(6 pt 2):I24-I29. MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Loop FD, Lytle BW, Cosgrove DM. New arteries for old. Circulation 1989; 79(6 pt 2):I40-I45. MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Johnson LW, Krone R. Cardiac catheterization 1991: a report of the Registry of the Society for Cardiac Angiography and Interventions (SCA&I). Cathet Cardiovasc Diagn 1993; 28:219-220. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Engelmann MG, von Smekal A, Knez A, et al. Accuracy of spiral computed tomography for identifying arterial and venous coronary graft patency. Am J Cardiol 1997; 80:569-574. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Achenbach S, Giesler T, Ropers D, et al. Detection of coronary artery stenoses by contrast-enhanced, retrospectively electrocardiographically-gated, multislice spiral computed tomography. Circulation 2001; 103:2535-2538. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Becker CR, Knez A, Leber A, et al. Detection of coronary artery stenoses with multislice helical CT angiography. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2002; 26:750-755. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Nieman K, Oudkerk M, Rensing BJ, et al. Coronary angiography with multi-slice computed tomography. Lancet 2001; 357:599-603. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Willmann JK, Kobza R, Roos JE, et al. ECG-gated multi-detector row CT for assessment of mitral valve disease: initial experience. Eur Radiol 2002; 12:2662-2669. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Willmann JK, Weishaupt D, Lachat M, et al. Electrocardiographically gated multi-detector row CT for assessment of valvular morphology and calcification in aortic stenosis. Radiology 2002; 225:120-128. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Ropers D, Ulzheimer S, Wenkel E, et al. Investigation of aortocoronary artery bypass grafts by multislice spiral computed tomography with electrocardiographic-gated image reconstruction. Am J Cardiol 2001; 88:792-795. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Hong C, Becker CR, Huber A, et al. ECG-gated reconstructed multi-detector row CT coronary angiography: effect of varying trigger delay on image quality. Radiology 2001; 220:712-717. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Commission of the European Communities. European guidelines on quality criteria for computed tomography EUR 16262EN Luxembourg, England: Office for the Official Publications of the European Communities, 2000. Google Scholar
  • 14 Bochud FO, Grecescu M, Valley JF. Calibration of ionization chambers in air kerma length. Phys Med Biol 2001; 46:2477-2487. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Le Heron JC. Estimation of effective dose to the patient during medical x-ray examinations from measurements of DAP. Phys Med Biol 1992; 37:2117-2126. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Landis JR, Koch GG. An application of hierarchical kappa-type statistics in the assessment of majority agreement among multiple observers. Biometrics 1977; 33:363-374. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Langerak SE, Vliegen HW, de Roos A, et al. Detection of vein graft disease using high-resolution magnetic resonance angiography. Circulation 2002; 105:328-333. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Lu B, Dai RP, Jing BL, et al. Evaluation of coronary artery bypass graft patency using three-dimensional reconstruction and flow study on electron beam tomography. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2000; 24:663-670. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Achenbach S, Moshage W, Ropers D, Nossen J, Bachmann K. Noninvasive, three-dimensional visualization of coronary artery bypass grafts by electron beam tomography. Am J Cardiol 1997; 79:856-861. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Kopp AF, Schroeder S, Kuettner A, et al. Coronary arteries: retrospectively ECG-gated multi-detector row CT angiography with selective optimization of the image reconstruction window. Radiology 2001; 221:683-688. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Roos JE, Willmann JK, Weishaupt D, Lachat M, Marincek B, Hilfiker PR. Thoracic aorta: motion artifact reduction with retrospective and prospective electrocardiography-assisted multi-detector row CT. Radiology 2002; 222:271-277. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 22 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. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Flohr T, Stierstorfer K, Bruder H, Simon J, Schaller S. New technical developments in multislice CT. Part I. Approaching isotropic resolution with sub-millimeter 16-slice scanning. Rofo Fortschr Geb Rontgenstr Neuen Bildgeb Verfahr 2002; 174:839-845. [German]. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Bourassa MG, Fisher LD, Campeau L, Gillespie MJ, McConney M, Lesperance J. Long-term fate of bypass grafts: the Coronary Artery Surgery Study (CASS) and Montreal Heart Institute experiences. Circulation 1985; 72(6 pt 2):V71-V78. MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Giesler T, Baum U, Ropers D, et al. Noninvasive visualization of coronary arteries using contrast-enhanced multidetector CT: influence of heart rate on image quality and stenosis detection. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002; 179:911-916. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

Article History

Published in print: Aug 2004