"skipMainNavigation"
Search
Quick Search in Journals
Quick Search anywhere
Advanced Search
Radiology
Menu
Previous
Next
Original Research

Prospectively Gated Transverse Coronary CT Angiography versus Retrospectively Gated Helical Technique: Improved Image Quality and Reduced Radiation Dose

Published Online:Mar 1 2008https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2463070989

Abstract

Purpose: To retrospectively compare image quality, radiation dose, and blood vessel assessability for coronary artery computed tomographic (CT) angiograms obtained with a prospectively gated transverse (PGT) CT technique and a retrospectively gated helical (RGH) CT technique.

Materials and Methods: This HIPAA-compliant study received a waiver for approval from the institutional review board, including one for informed consent. Coronary CT angiograms obtained with 64–detector row CT were retrospectively evaluated in 203 clinical patients. A routine RGH technique was evaluated in 82 consecutive patients (44 males, 38 females; mean age, 55.6 years). The PGT technique was then evaluated in 121 additional patients (71 males, 50 females; mean age, 56.7 years). All images were evaluated for image quality, estimated radiation dose, and coronary artery segment assessability. Differences in image quality score were evaluated by using a proportional odds logistic regression model, with main effects for three readers, two techniques, and four arteries.

Results: The mean effective dose for the group with the PGT technique was 2.8 mSv; this represents an 83% reduction as compared with that for the group with the RGH technique (mean, 18.4 mSv; P < .001). The image quality score for each of the arteries, as well as the overall combined score, was significantly greater for images obtained with PGT technique than for images obtained with RGH technique. The combined mean image quality score was 4.791 for images obtained with PGT technique versus 4.514 for images obtained with RGH technique (proportional odds model odds ratio, 2.8; 95% confidence interval: 1.7, 4.8). The percentage of assessable coronary artery segments was 98.6% (1196 of 1213) for images obtained with PGT technique versus 97.9% (1741 of 1778) for images obtained with RGH technique (P = .83).

Conclusion: PGT coronary CT angiography offers improved image quality and substantially reduced effective radiation dose compared with traditional RGH coronary CT angiography.

© RSNA, 2008

References

  • 1 Nieman K, Cademartiri F, Lemos PA, Raaijmakers R, Pattynama PM, de Feyter PJ. Reliable noninvasive coronary angiography with fast submillimeter multislice spiral computed tomography. Circulation 2002; 106: 2051–2054.
    MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Ropers D, Baum U, Pohle K, et al. Detection of coronary artery stenoses with thin-slice multi-detector row spiral computed tomography and multiplanar reconstruction. Circulation 2003;107:664–666.
    MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Hunold P, Vogt FM, Schmermund A, et al. Radiation exposure during cardiac CT: effective doses at multi-detector row CT and electron-beam CT. Radiology 2003;226:145–152.
    Google Scholar
  • 4 Flohr TG, Schoepf UJ, Kuettner A, et al. Advances in cardiac imaging with 16-section CT systems. Acad Radiol 2003;10:386–401.
    MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Trabold T, Buchgeister M, Kuttner A, et al. Estimation of radiation exposure in 16-detector row computed tomography of the heart with retrospective ECG-gating. Rofo 2003;175:1051–1055.
    MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Morin RL, Gerber TC, McCollough CH. Radiation dose in computed tomography of the heart. Circulation 2003;107:917–922.
    MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Achenbach S, Ropers D, Hoffmann U, et al. Assessment of coronary remodeling in stenotic and nonstenotic coronary atherosclerotic lesions by multidetector spiral computed tomography. J Am Coll Cardiol 2004;43:842–847.
    MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Mollet NR, Cademartiri F, Nieman K, et al. Multislice spiral computed tomography coronary angiography in patients with stable angina pectoris. J Am Coll Cardiol 2004;43:2265–2270.
    MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Leber AW, Knez A, Becker A, et al. Accuracy of multidetector spiral computed tomography in identifying and differentiating the composition of coronary atherosclerotic plaques: a comparative study with intracoronary ultrasound. J Am Coll Cardiol 2004;43:1241–1247.
    MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Leschka S, Alkadhi H, Plass A, et al. Accuracy of MSCT coronary angiography with 64-slice technology: first experience. Eur Heart J 2005;26(15):1482–1487.
    MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Pugliese F, Mollet NR, Runza G, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of non-invasive 64-slice CT coronary angiography in patients with stable angina pectoris. Eur Radiol 2006;16(3):575–582.
    MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Mollet NR, Cademartiri F, van Mieghem CA, et al. High-resolution spiral computed tomography coronary angiography in patients referred for diagnostic conventional coronary angiography. Circulation 2005;112(15):2318–2323.
    MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Raff GL, Gallagher MJ, O'Neill WW, Goldstein JA. Diagnostic accuracy of noninvasive coronary angiography using 64-slice spiral computed tomography. J Am Coll Cardiol 2005;46(3):552–557.
    MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 14 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(3):672–677.
    MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Coles DR, Smail MA, Negus IS, et al. Comparison of radiation doses from multislice computed tomography coronary and conventional diagnostic angiography. J Am Coll Cardiol 2006;47:1840–1845.
    MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Thompson R, Cullom S. Issues regarding radiation dosage of cardiac nuclear and radiography procedures. J Nucl Cardiol 2006;13:19–23.
    MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Betsou S, Efstathopoulos EP, Katritsis D, et al. Patient radiation doses during cardiac catheterisation procedures. Br J Radiol 1998;71:634–639.
    MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Broadhead DA, Chapple CL, Faulkner K, et al. The impact of cardiology on the collective effective dose in the north of England. Br J Radiol 1997;70:492–497.
    MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Leung KC, Martin CJ. Effective doses for coronary angiography. Br J Radiol 1996;69:426–431.
    MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Coulden RA, Readman LP. Coronary angiography: an analysis of radiographic practice in the UK. Br J Radiol 1993;66:327–331.
    MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Francone M, Napoli A, Carbone I, et al. Noninvasive imaging of the coronary arteries using a 64-row multidetector CT scanner: initial clinical experience and radiation dose concerns. Radiol Med (Torino) 2007;112(1):31–46.
    MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Weustink A, Mollet N, Meijboom V, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of dual source computed tomography coronary angiography in patients referred for conventional angiography. Presented at the annual meeting of the American Heart Association, Chicago, Ill, November 12–15, 2006.
    Google Scholar
  • 23 Ropers U, Karakaya S, Wechsel M, et al. Randomized comparison of dual source computed tomography and 64-slice multi-detector computed tomography for the detection of coronary artery stenoses. Presented at the annual meeting of the American Heart Association, Chicago, Ill, November 12–15, 2006.
    Google Scholar
  • 24 McCollough CH, Primak AN, Saba O, et al. Dose performance of a 64-channel dual-source CT scanner. Radiology 2007;243(3):775–784.
    Google Scholar
  • 25 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.
    MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Abada HT, Larchez C, Daoud B, Sigal-Cinqualbre A, Paul JF. MDCT of the coronary arteries: feasibility of low-dose CT with ECG-pulsed tube current modulation to reduce radiation dose. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2006;186(6 suppl 2):S387–S390.
    MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Hsieh J, Londt J, Vass M, Li J, Tang X, Okerlund D. Step-and-shoot data acquisition and reconstruction for cardiac x-ray computed tomography. Med Phys 2006;33(11):4236–4248.
    MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 28 International Electrotechnical Commission. Medical electrical equipment: part 2-44—particular requirements for the safety of x-ray equipment for computed tomography. IEC publication no. 60601-2-44. Geneva, Switzerland: International Electrotechnical Commission, 2002; 1–36.
    Google Scholar
  • 29 Hausleiter J, Meyer T, Hadamitzky M, et al. Radiation dose estimates from cardiac multislice computed tomography in daily practice. Circulation 2006;113:1305–1310.
    MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 30 European guidelines on quality criteria for computed tomography. http://www.drs.dk/guidelines/ct/quality/index.htm. Accessed June 26, 2002.
    Google Scholar
  • 31 Austen WG, Edwards JE, Frye RL, et al. A reporting system on patients evaluated for coronary artery disease: report of the Ad Hoc Committee for Grading of Coronary Artery Disease, Council on Cardiovascular Surgery, American Heart Association. Circulation 1975;51:5–40.
    MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Shim SS, Kim Y, Lim SM. Improvement of image quality with beta-blocker premedication on ECG-gated 16-MDCT coronary angiography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2005;184:649–654.
    MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 33 McCullagh P, Nelder JA. Generalized linear models. London, England: Chapman & Hall, 1989.
    Google Scholar
  • 34 Liang KY, Zeger SL. Longitudinal data analysis using generalized linear models. Biometrika 1986;73:13–22.
    Google Scholar
  • 35 R Development Core Team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2006. http://www.R-project.org. Accessed March 1, 2007.
    Google Scholar
  • 36 Agresti A. Categorical data analysis. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2002.
    Google Scholar
  • 37 Walters SJ. Sample size and power estimation for studies with health related quality of life outcomes: a comparison of four methods using the SF-36. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2004;2(1):26.
    MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Ertl-Wagner BB, Hoffmann RT, Bruning R, et al. Multi-detector row CT angiography of the brain at various kilovoltage settings. Radiology 2004;231:528–535.
    Google Scholar
  • 39 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.
    Google Scholar
  • 40 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.
    Google Scholar
  • 41 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.
    MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Committee to Assess Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation, National Research Council. Health risks from exposure to low levels of ionizing radiation: BEIR VII—phase 2. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2005.
    Google Scholar
  • 43 International Commission on Radiological Protection. 1990 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. International Commission on Radiological Protection publication no. 60. Ann ICRP 1991;21(1-3):1–201.
    Google Scholar
  • 44 Valentin J, Valentin DJ. Radiation dose to patients from radiopharmaceuticals: (addendum 2 to ICRP publication no. 53) approved by the commission in September 1997. Ann ICRP 1998;28:1–123.
    Google Scholar
  • 45 Shreter U, Londt J, Vass M, Cesmeli E, Hsieh J, Ge Z. Prospective ECG gating in cardiovascular CTA imaging delivers up to 5-fold dose reduction while maintaining image quality. Presented at the 34th annual meeting of the North American Society of Cardiac Imaging, Las Vegas, Nev, October 6–10, 2006.
    Google Scholar

Article History

Published in print: 2008