Advertisement

European Radiology

, 19:2931 | Cite as

“In-house” pharmacological management for computed tomography coronary angiography: heart rate reduction, timing and safety of different drugs used during patient preparation

  • Erica Maffei
  • Alessandro A. Palumbo
  • Chiara Martini
  • Carlo Tedeschi
  • Giuseppe Tarantini
  • Sara Seitun
  • Livia Ruffini
  • Annachiara Aldrovandi
  • Annick C. Weustink
  • Willem B. Meijboom
  • Nico R. Mollet
  • Gabriel P. Krestin
  • Pim J. de Feyter
  • Filippo Cademartiri
Cardiac

Abstract

We retrospectively evaluated the effect, timing and safety of different pharmacological strategies during 64-slice CT coronary angiography (CT-CA). From the institutional database of CT-CA we enrolled 560 consecutive patients with suspected coronary artery disease. The type of drug preparation (group 1 = no treatment; group 2 = oral metoprolol; group 3 = other; group 4 = intravenous (IV) atenolol; group 5 = IV atenolol + nitrates; NR = non-responders), timing, and adverse effects were recorded. Heart rate (HR) during different preparation phases was recorded. Four adverse effects were recorded, none of which was attributable to pharmacological treatment. In all groups, except group 1, the HR on arrival was significantly reduced by the pharmacological treatment (p < 0.01). Group 4 showed the best (−16 ± 8 bpm) HR reduction. There was no significant effect on HR due to nitrates (p = 0.49), while a slight increase due to contrast material was noted (p < 0.05). Average time required for preparation was 44 ± 25 min. Groups 4 and 5 showed the most effective timing (8 ± 9 min and 8 ± 8 min, respectively; p < 0.01). Pharmacological preparation in patients undergoing CT-CA is safe and effective. Best results in terms of HR reduction and fast preparation are obtained with IV administration of beta-blockers.

Keywords

Drug Beta-blockers Heart rate Multislice computed tomography Coronary artery disease 64-slice CT Intravenous 

References

  1. 1.
    Miller JM, Rochitte CE, Dewey M et al (2008) Diagnostic performance of coronary angiography by 64-row CT. N Engl J Med 359:2324–2336CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Budoff MJ, Dowe D, Jollis JG et al (2008) Diagnostic performance of 64-multidetector row coronary computed tomographic angiography for evaluation of coronary artery stenosis in individuals without known coronary artery disease: results from the prospective multicenter ACCURACY (Assessment by Coronary Computed Tomographic Angiography of Individuals Undergoing Invasive Coronary Angiography) trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 52:1724–1732CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mollet NR, Cademartiri F, van Mieghem CA et al (2005) High-resolution spiral computed tomography coronary angiography in patients referred for diagnostic conventional coronary angiography. Circulation 112:2318–2323CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ropers D, Rixe J, Anders K et al (2006) Usefulness of multidetector row spiral computed tomography with 64- × 0.6-mm collimation and 330-ms rotation for the noninvasive detection of significant coronary artery stenoses. Am J Cardiol 97:343–348CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Leschka S, Alkadhi H, Plass A et al (2005) Accuracy of MSCT coronary angiography with 64-slice technology: first experience. Eur Heart J 26:1482–1487CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cademartiri F, Mollet NR, Runza G et al (2005) Diagnostic accuracy of multislice computed tomography coronary angiography is improved at low heart rates. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 1–5Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Nieman K, Rensing BJ, van Geuns RJ et al (2002) Non-invasive coronary angiography with multislice spiral computed tomography: impact of heart rate. Heart 88:470–474CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ropers U, Ropers D, Pflederer T et al (2007) Influence of heart rate on the diagnostic accuracy of dual-source computed tomography coronary angiography. J Am Coll Cardiol 50:2393–2398CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Degertekin M, Gemici G, Kaya Z et al (2008) Safety and efficacy of patient preparation with intravenous esmolol before 64-slice computed tomography coronary angiography. Coron Artery Dis 19:33–36CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pannu HK, Sullivan C, Lai S, Fishman EK (2008) Evaluation of the effectiveness of oral beta-blockade in patients for coronary computed tomographic angiography. J Comput Assist Tomogr 32:247–251CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Shapiro MD, Pena AJ, Nichols JH et al (2008) Efficacy of pre-scan beta-blockade and impact of heart rate on image quality in patients undergoing coronary multidetector computed tomography angiography. Eur J Radiol 66:37–41CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Shim SS, Kim Y, Lim SM (2005) Improvement of image quality with beta-blocker premedication on ECG-gated 16-MDCT coronary angiography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 184:649–654PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pannu HK, Alvarez W Jr., Fishman EK (2006) Beta-blockers for cardiac CT: a primer for the radiologist. AJR Am J Roentgenol 186:S341–S345CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Roberts WT, Wright AR, Timmis JB, Timmis AD (2009) Safety and efficacy of a rate control protocol for cardiac CT. Br J Radiol 82:267–271CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Stolzmann P, Leschka S, Scheffel H et al (2008) Dual-source CT in step-and-shoot mode: noninvasive coronary angiography with low radiation dose. Radiology 249:71–80CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Shuman WP, Branch KR, May JM et al (2008) Prospective versus retrospective ECG gating for 64-detector CT of the coronary arteries: comparison of image quality and patient radiation dose. Radiology 248:431–437CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Scheffel H, Alkadhi H, Leschka S et al (2008) Low-dose CT coronary angiography in the step-and-shoot mode: diagnostic performance. Heart 94:1132–1137CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hirai N, Horiguchi J, Fujioka C et al (2008) Prospective versus retrospective ECG-gated 64-detector coronary CT angiography: assessment of image quality, stenosis, and radiation dose. Radiology 248:424–430CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Horiguchi J, Fujioka C, Kiguchi M et al (2009) Prospective ECG-triggered axial CT at 140-kV tube voltage improves coronary in-stent restenosis visibility at a lower radiation dose compared with conventional retrospective ECG-gated helical CT. Eur Radiol. doi: 10.1007/s00330-009-1419-1
  20. 20.
    Arnoldi E, Johnson TR, Rist C et al (2009) Adequate image quality with reduced radiation dose in prospectively triggered coronary CTA compared with retrospective techniques. Eur Radiol. doi: 10.1007/s00330-009-1411-9
  21. 21.
    Cademartiri F, Runza G, Belgrano M et al (2005) Introduction to coronary imaging with 64-slice computed tomography. Radiol Med (Torino) 110:16–41Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nieman K, Oudkerk M, Rensig BJ et al (2001) Coronary angiography with multislice computed tomography. Lancet 357:599–603CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Achenbach S, Giesler T, Ropers D et al (2001) Detection of coronary artery stenoses by contrast-enhanced, retrospectively electrocardiographically-gated, multislice spiral computed tomography. Circulation 103:2535–2538PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Scheffel H, Alkadhi H, Plass A et al (2006) Accuracy of dual-source CT coronary angiography: first experience in a high pre-test probability population without heart rate control. Eur Radiol 16:2739–2747CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Johnson TR, Nikolaou K, Wintersperger BJ et al (2006) Dual-source CT cardiac imaging: initial experience. Eur Radiol 16:1409–1415CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Flohr TG, McCollough CH, Bruder H et al (2006) First performance evaluation of a dual-source CT (DSCT) system. Eur Radiol 16(2):256–268CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Weustink AC, Meijboom WB, Mollet NR et al (2007) Reliable high-speed coronary computed tomography in symptomatic patients. J Am Coll Cardiol 50:786–794CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Romano L, Grazioli L, Bonomo L et al (2009) Enhancement and safety of iomeprol-400 and iodixanol-320 in patients undergoing abdominal multidetector CT. Br J Radiol 82:204–211CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sahani DV, Soulez G, Chen KM et al (2007) A comparison of the efficacy and safety of iopamidol-370 and iodixanol-320 in patients undergoing multidetector-row computed tomography. Invest Radiol 42:856–861CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Schmid I, Didier D, Pfammatter T et al (2007) Effects of non-ionic iodinated contrast media on patient heart rate and pressures during intra-cardiac or intra-arterial injection. Int J Cardiol 118:389–396CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Fox K, Ford I, Steg PG, Tendera M, Ferrari R (2008) Ivabradine for patients with stable coronary artery disease and left-ventricular systolic dysfunction (BEAUTIFUL): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet 372:807–816CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Erica Maffei
    • 1
  • Alessandro A. Palumbo
    • 1
    • 2
  • Chiara Martini
    • 1
    • 2
  • Carlo Tedeschi
    • 1
  • Giuseppe Tarantini
    • 1
    • 4
  • Sara Seitun
    • 1
  • Livia Ruffini
    • 1
  • Annachiara Aldrovandi
    • 1
  • Annick C. Weustink
    • 2
  • Willem B. Meijboom
    • 2
  • Nico R. Mollet
    • 2
  • Gabriel P. Krestin
    • 2
  • Pim J. de Feyter
    • 2
  • Filippo Cademartiri
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Radiology and CardiologyAzienda Ospedaliero - Universitaria di ParmaParmaItaly
  2. 2.Department of Radiology and CardiologyErasmus Medical CenterRotterdamThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Department of Radiology c/o Piastra Tecnica - Piano 0Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria - ParmaParmaItaly
  4. 4.Department of CardiologyUniversity of PaduaPaduaItaly

Personalised recommendations