Advertisement

Japanese Journal of Radiology

, Volume 28, Issue 6, pp 437–445 | Cite as

Coronary computed tomography angiography using prospective electrocardiography-gated axial scans with 64-detector computed tomography: evaluation of stair-step artifacts and padding time

  • Fumiko KimuraEmail author
  • Tatsuo Umezawa
  • Tomonari Asano
  • Ruri Chihara
  • Naoko Nishi
  • Shigeyoshi Nishimura
  • Fumikazu Sakai
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

We compared stair-step artifacts and radiation dose between prospective electrocardiography (ECG)-gated coronary computed tomography angiography (prospective CCTA) and retrospective CCTA using 64-detector CT and determined the optimal padding time (PT) for prospective CCTA.

Materials and methods

We retrospectively evaluated 183 patients [mean heart rate (HR) <65 beats/min, maximum HR instability <5 beats/min] who had undergone CCTA. We scored stair-step artifacts from 1 (severe) to 5 (none) and evaluated the effective dose in 53 patients with retrospective CCTA and 130 with prospective CCTA (PT 200 ms, n = 32; PT 50 ms, n = 98).

Results

Mean artifact scores were 4.3 in both retrospective and prospective CCTAs. However, statistically more arteries scored <3 (nonassessable) on prospective CCTA (P < 0.001). Mean scores for prospective CCTA with 200- and 50-ms PT were 4.1 and 4.3, respectively (no significant difference). The radiation dose of prospective CCTA was reduced by 59.1% to 80.7%.

Conclusion

Prospective CCTA reduces the radiation dose and allows diagnostic imaging in most cases but shows more nonevaluable artifacts than retrospective CCTA. Use of 50-ms instead of 200-ms PT appears to maintain image quality in patients with a mean HR < 65 beats/min and HR instability of <5 beats/min.

Key words

Coronary CT angiography Artifact Radiation dose 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Hsieh J, Londt J, Vass M, Li J, Tang X, Okerlund D. Stepand-shoot data acquisition and reconstruction for cardiac X-ray computed tomography. Med Phys 2006;33:4236–4248.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Shuman WP, Branch KR, May JM, Mitsumori LM, Lockhart DW, Dubinsky TJ, et al. Prospective versus retrospective ECG gating for 64-detector CT of the coronary arteries: comparison of image quality and patient radiation dose. Radiology 2008;248:431–437.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hirai N, Horiguchi J, Fujioka C, Kiguchi M, Yamamoto H, Matsuura N, et al. Prospective versus retrospective ECGgated 64-detector coronary CT angiography: assessment of image quality, stenosis, and radiation dose. Radiology 2008;248:424–430.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gopal A, Mao SS, Karlsberg D, Young E, Waggoner J, Ahmadi N, et al. Radiation reduction with prospective ECGtriggering acquisition using 64-multidetector computed tomographic angiography. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 2009;25:405–416.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Maruyama T, Takada M, Hasuike T, Yoshikawa A, Namimatsu E, Yoshizumi T. Radiation dose and coronary assessability of prospective electrocardiogram-gated computed tomography coronary angiography: comparison with retrospective electrocardiogram-gated helical scan. J Am Coll Cardiol 2008;52:1450–1455.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kroft LJ, de Roos A, Geleijns J. Artifacts in ECG-synchronized MDCT coronary angiography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007;189:581–591.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dewey M, Laule M, Krug L, Schnapauff D, Rogalla P, Rutsch W, et al. Multisegment and halfscan reconstruction of 16-slice computed tomography for detection of coronary artery stenoses. Invest Radiol 2004;39:223–229.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dewey M, Teige F, Laule M, Hamm B. Influence of heart rate on diagnostic accuracy and image quality of 16-slice CT coronary angiography: comparison of multisegment and halfscan reconstruction approaches. Eur Radiol 2007;17:2829–2837.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Austen WG, Edwards JE, Frye RL, Gensini GG, Gott VL, Griffith LS, 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(suppl):5–40.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (publication 103). Ann ICRP 2007;37:1–332.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cohen J. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ Psychol Meas 1960;20:37–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Choi HS, Choi BW, Choe KO, Choi D, Yoo KJ, Kimet MI, et al. Pitfalls, artifacts, and remedies in multi-detector row CT coronary angiography. Radiographics 2004;24:787–800.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Husmann L, Herzog BA, Burkhard N, Tatsugami F, Valenta I, Gaemperli O, et al. Body physique and heart rate variability determine the occurrence of stair-step artefacts in 64-slice CT coronary angiography with prospective ECG-triggering. Eur Radiol 2009;19:1698–1703.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rybicki FJ, Otero HJ, Steigner ML, Vorobiof G, Nallamshetty L, Mitsouras D, et al. Initial evaluation of coronary images from 320-detector row computed tomography. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 2008;24:535–546.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Choi SI, George RT, Schuleri KH, Chun EJ, Lima JA, Lardo AC. Recent developments in wide-detector cardiac computed tomography. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 2009;25(suppl 1):23–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Herzog BA, Husmann L, Burkhard N, Valenta I, Gaemperli O, Tatsugami F, et al. Low-dose CT coronary angiography using prospective ECG-triggering: impact of mean heart rate and heart rate variability on image quality. Acad Radiol 2009;16:15–21.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    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:S387–S390.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Cademartiri F, Mollet NR, Runza G, Baks T, Midiri M, McFadden EP, et al. Improving diagnostic accuracy of MDCT coronary angiography in patients with mild heart rhythm irregularities using ECG editing. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2006;186:634–638.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Japan Radiological Society 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Fumiko Kimura
    • 1
    Email author
  • Tatsuo Umezawa
    • 1
  • Tomonari Asano
    • 1
  • Ruri Chihara
    • 2
  • Naoko Nishi
    • 1
  • Shigeyoshi Nishimura
    • 2
  • Fumikazu Sakai
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Diagnostic RadiologySaitama Medical University International Medical CenterHidakaJapan
  2. 2.Department of CardiologySaitama Medical University International Medical CenterHidakaJapan

Personalised recommendations