Radiation dose reduction and coronary assessability of prospective electrocardiogram-gated computed tomography coronary angiography: comparison with retrospective electrocardiogram-gated helical scan.

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 <or=65 beats/min, 97 were analyzed by helical scan with tube current modulation and 76 were analyzed by prospective gating. Coronary assessability and diagnostic accuracy were investigated in comparison with selective CA as the gold standard. Radiation doses were evaluated in both protocols. 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.

[1]  A. Einstein,et al.  Estimating risk of cancer associated with radiation exposure from 64-slice computed tomography coronary angiography. , 2007, JAMA.

[2]  G. Hounsfield.  Computed Medical Imaging , 1980, Science.

[3]  Gabriel P. Krestin,et al.  Diagnostic accuracy of non-invasive 64-slice CT coronary angiography in patients with stable angina pectoris , 2006, European Radiology.

[4]  Ulrich Baum,et al.  Usefulness of multidetector row spiral computed tomography with 64- x 0.6-mm collimation and 330-ms rotation for the noninvasive detection of significant coronary artery stenoses. , 2006, The American journal of cardiology.

[5]  G. Raff,et al.  Diagnostic accuracy of noninvasive coronary angiography using 64-slice spiral computed tomography. , 2005, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[6]  Simon Wildermuth,et al.  Accuracy of MSCT coronary angiography with 64-slice technology: first experience. , 2005 .

[7]  Peter Wilde,et al.  Comparison of radiation doses from multislice computed tomography coronary angiography and conventional diagnostic angiography. , 2006, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[8]  AlbertSchömig,et al.  Radiation Dose Estimates From Cardiac Multislice Computed Tomography in Daily Practice , 2006 .

[9]  D. Kass,et al.  Mechanisms and Use of Calcium-Sensitizing Agents in the Failing Heart , 2006, Circulation.

[10]  Pat Zanzonico,et al.  Radiation exposure of computed tomography and direct intracoronary angiography: risk has its reward. , 2006, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[11]  Borut Marincek,et al.  Radiation dose estimates in dual-source computed tomography coronary angiography , 2008, European Radiology.

[12]  Kouichi Yamasaki,et al.  Comparison of visibility and diagnostic capability of noninvasive coronary angiography by eight-slice multidetector-row computed tomography versus conventional coronary angiography. , 2004, The American journal of cardiology.

[13]  Fuminari Tatsugami,et al.  Feasibility of low-dose coronary CT angiography: first experience with prospective ECG-gating. , 2007, European heart journal.

[14]  C. Arvanitakis,et al.  TREATMENT FOR ACHALASIA , 1976, The Lancet.

[15]  Jörg Hausleiter,et al.  Radiation Dose Estimates From Cardiac Multislice Computed Tomography in Daily Practice: Impact of Different Scanning Protocols on Effective Dose Estimates , 2006, Circulation.

[16]  R. Frye,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. , 1975, Circulation.

[17]  P. Alderson,et al.  A comparative study of thoracic radiation doses from 64-slice cardiac CT. , 2007, The British journal of radiology.

[18]  Konstantin Nikolaou,et al.  Quantification of obstructive and nonobstructive coronary lesions by 64-slice computed tomography: a comparative study with quantitative coronary angiography and intravascular ultrasound. , 2005, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[19]  Jiang Hsieh,et al.  Step-and-shoot data acquisition and reconstruction for cardiac x-ray computed tomography. , 2006, Medical physics.