Dual-Source CT: Effect of Heart Rate, Heart Rate Variability, and Calcification on Image Quality and Diagnostic Accuracy

Purpose: To prospectively evaluate the effect of heart rate, heart rate variability, and calcification on dual-source computed tomography (CT) image quality and to prospectively assess diagnostic accuracy of dual-source CT for coronary artery stenosis, by using invasive coronary angiography as the reference standard.

Materials and Methods: This study had local Ethics Committee approval; all patients gave informed consent. Patients who underwent bypass surgery were excluded; patients with coronary artery stent-grafts were included. One hundred patients (20 women, 80 men; mean age, 62 years ± 10 [standard deviation]) known to have or suspected of having coronary artery disease underwent dual-source CT and invasive coronary angiography. Image quality was assessed. Accuracy of dual-source CT in depiction or exclusion of significant stenosis (≥50%) was evaluated on a per-segment and per-patient basis. Effects of heart rate, heart rate variability, and calcification on image quality and accuracy were analyzed by using multivariate regression and were analyzed between subgroups of predictor variables. Simple regression was performed to calculate thresholds for adequate image quality.

Results: Mean heart rate was 64.9 beats per minute ± 13.2, mean variability was 23.6 beats per CT examination ± 36.2, and mean Agatston score was 786.5 ± 965.9. Diagnostic image quality was obtained in 90.2% of segments. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values for the presence of significant stenosis were, respectively, 91.1%, 92.0%, 75.4%, and 97.5% by segment and 100%, 81.5%, 93.6%, and 100% by patient. Image quality was significantly related to heart rate variability (P = .015) and calcification (P < .001); the number of nondiagnostic segments was significantly affected by calcification only. Calcification was the single factor with significant impact on diagnostic accuracy (P = .001).

Conclusion: While dual-source CT resulted in heart-rate independent image quality, image quality remained prone to heart rate variability and calcification.

© RSNA, 2008

References

  • 1 Rumberger JA. Noninvasive coronary angiography using computed tomography: ready to kick it up another notch? Circulation 2002; 106: 2036–2038. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Schoepf UJ, Becker CR, Ohnesorge BM, Yucel EK. CT of coronary artery disease. Radiology 2004; 232: 18–37. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Ehara M, Surmely JF, Kawai M, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of 64-slice computed tomography for detecting angiographically significant coronary artery stenosis in an unselected consecutive patient population: comparison with conventional invasive angiography. Circ J 2006; 70: 564–571. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Herzog C, Zwerner PL, Doll JR, et al. Significant coronary artery stenosis: comparison on per-patient and per-vessel or per-segment basis at 64-section CT angiography. Radiology 2007; 244: 112–120. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Hoffmann MH, Shi H, Manzke R, et al. Noninvasive coronary angiography with 16-detector row CT: effect of heart rate. Radiology 2005; 234: 86–97. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Kuettner A, Trabold T, Schroeder S, et al. Noninvasive detection of coronary lesions using 16-detector multislice spiral computed tomography technology: initial clinical results. J Am Coll Cardiol 2004; 44: 1230–1237. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Leber AW, Knez A, von Ziegler F, et al. Quantification of obstructive and nonobstructive coronary lesions by 64-slice computed tomography: a comparative study with quantitative coronary angiography and intravascular ultrasound. J Am Coll Cardiol 2005; 46: 147–154. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Leschka S, Alkadhi H, Plass A, et al. Accuracy of MSCT coronary angiography with 64-slice technology: first experience. Eur Heart J 2005; 26: 1482–1487. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 9 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: 2318–2323. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Nikolaou K, Knez A, Rist C, et al. Accuracy of 64-MDCT in the diagnosis of ischemic heart disease. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2006; 187: 111–117. Crossref, 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: 575–582. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 12 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: 552–557. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Brodoefel H, Reimann A, Heuschmid M, et al. Non-invasive coronary angiography with 16-slice spiral computed tomography: image quality in patients with high heart rates. Eur Radiol 2006; 16: 1434–1441. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Cademartiri F, Mollet NR, Lemos PA, et al. Impact of coronary calcium score on diagnostic accuracy for the detection of significant coronary stenosis with multislice computed tomography angiography. Am J Cardiol 2005; 95: 1225–1227. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Herzog C, Nguyen SA, Savino G, et al. Does two-segment image reconstruction at 64-section CT coronary angiography improve image quality and diagnostic accuracy? Radiology 2007; 244: 121–129. Google Scholar
  • 16 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. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Ferencik M, Nomura CH, Maurovich-Horvat P, et al. Quantitative parameters of image quality in 64-slice computed tomography angiography of the coronary arteries. Eur J Radiol 2006; 57: 373–379. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Herzog C, Arning-Erb M, Zangos S, et al. Multi-detector row CT coronary angiography: influence of reconstruction technique and heart rate on image quality. Radiology 2006; 238: 75–86. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Leschka S, Husmann L, Desbiolles LM, et al. Optimal image reconstruction intervals for non-invasive coronary angiography with 64-slice CT. Eur Radiol 2006; 16: 1964–1972. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Wintersperger BJ, Nikolaou K, von Ziegler F, et al. Image quality, motion artifacts, and reconstruction timing of 64-slice coronary computed tomography angiography with 0.33-second rotation speed. Invest Radiol 2006; 41: 436–442. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Ong TK, Chin SP, Liew CK, et al. Accuracy of 64-row multidetector computed tomography in detecting coronary artery disease in 134 symptomatic patients: influence of calcification. Am Heart J 2006; 151: 1323.e1–e6. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Flohr TG, McCollough CH, Bruder H, et al. First performance evaluation of a dual-source CT (DSCT) system. Eur Radiol 2006; 16: 256–268. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Achenbach S, Ropers D, Kuettner A, et al. Contrast-enhanced coronary artery visualization by dual-source computed tomography: initial experience. Eur J Radiol 2006; 57: 331–335. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Johnson TR, Nikolaou K, Wintersperger BJ, et al. Dual-source CT cardiac imaging: initial experience. Eur Radiol 2006; 16: 1409–1415. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Scheffel H, Alkadhi H, Plass A, et al. Accuracy of dual-source CT coronary angiography: first experience in a high pre-test probability population without heart rate control. Eur Radiol 2006; 16: 2739–2747. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Bashore TM, Bates ER, Berger PB, et al. American College of Cardiology/Society for Cardiac Angiography and Interventions Clinical Expert Consensus Document on cardiac catheterization laboratory standards: a report of the American College of Cardiology Task Force on Clinical Expert Consensus Documents. J Am Coll Cardiol 2001; 37: 2170–2214. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

Article History

Published in print: 2008