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

    Prospective versus Retrospective ECG Gating for 64-Detector CT of the Coronary Arteries: Comparison of Image Quality and Patient Radiation Dose

    Published Online:Aug 1 2008https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2482072192

    Abstract

    Purpose: To compare image quality and patient radiation dose in a group of patients who underwent 64-detector computed tomography (CT) coronary angiography performed with prospective electrocardiographic (ECG) gating with image quality and radiation dose in a group of patients matched for clinical features who underwent 64-detector CT coronary angiography performed with retrospective ECG gating.

    Materials and Methods: Institutional review board approval was obtained for this HIPAA-compliant study, and the informed consent requirement was waived due to the retrospective study design. Two independent reviewers separately scored coronary artery segment image quality and overall image quality for 100 cardiac CT studies (50 in each group). Interobserver variability was calculated. Patient radiation dose for the actual examination z-axis length was recorded, and a normalized dose was calculated for a 12-cm z-axis length of a typical heart.

    Results: The two groups matched well for clinical characteristics and CT parameters. There was good agreement for coronary artery segment image quality scores between the independent reviewers (κ = 0.72). Of the 1253 coronary artery segments scored, the number of coronary artery segments that could not be evaluated in each group was similar (1.1% [seven of 614] in the prospective group vs 1.5% [10 of 647] in the retrospective group, P = .53). Image quality scores were not significantly different when matched for chest cross-sectional area (P > .05). Mean patient radiation dose was 77% lower for prospective gating (4.2 mSv) than for retrospective gating (18.1 mSv) (P < .01).

    Conclusion: Use of 64-detector CT coronary angiography performed with prospective ECG gating has similar subjective image quality scores but 77% lower patient radiation dose when compared with use of retrospective ECG gating.

    © RSNA, 2008

    References

    • 1 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: 4236–4248.
      MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 2 Dowe D. Prospectively gated computed tomographic angiography dramatically reduces radiation dose. Diagn Imaging 2006; 28(suppl): S1–S5.
      Google Scholar
    • 3 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
    • 4 Brodoefel H, Reimann A, Burgstahler C, et al. Noninvasive coronary angiography using 64-slice spiral computed tomography in an unselected patient collective: effect of heart rate, heart rate variability and coronary calcifications on image quality and diagnostic accuracy. Eur J Radiol 2008; 66: 134–141.
      MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 5 Hur G, Hong SW, Kim SY, et al. Uniform image quality achieved by tube current modulation using SD of attenuation in coronary CT angiography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007; 189: 188–196.
      MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 6 Matt D, Scheffel H, Leschka S, et al. Dual-source CT coronary angiography: image quality, mean heart rate, and heart rate variability. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007; 189: 567–573.
      MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 7 Bongartz G, Golding SJ, Jurik AJ, et al. European guidelines for multislice computed tomography: report EUR 16262 EN 2004. Luxembourg: European Commission, 2004.
      Google Scholar
    • 8 White H. Maximum likelihood estimation of misspecified models. Econometrica 1982; 50: 1–25.
      Google Scholar
    • 9 McCullagh P. Regression models for ordinal data. J R Stat Soc Series B (Methodological) 1980; 42: 109–142.
      Google Scholar
    • 10 Akaike H. A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Trans Automatic Control 1974; 19: 716–723.
      Google Scholar
    • 11 Altman DG. Practical statistics for medical research. London, England: Chapman & Hall, 1991.
      Google Scholar
    • 12 Stein PD, Beemath A, Kayali F, Skaf E, Sanchez J, Olson RE. Multidetector computed tomography for the diagnosis of coronary artery disease: a systematic review. Am J Med 2006; 119: 203–216.
      MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 13 Hamon M, Biondi-Zoccai GG, Malagutti P, et al. Diagnostic performance of multislice spiral computed tomography of coronary arteries as compared with conventional invasive coronary angiography: a meta-analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol 2006; 48: 1896–1910.
      MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 14 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
    • 15 Hausleiter J, Meyer T, Hadamitzky M, et al. Radiation dose estimates from cardiac multislice computed tomography in daily practice: impact of different scanning protocols on effective dose estimates. Circulation 2006; 113: 1305–1310.
      MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 16 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.
      Google Scholar

    Article History

    Published in print: 2008