Skip to main content

Prospective ECG-triggered sequential versus retrospective ECG-gated spiral CT: Pros and cons

Current Cardiovascular Imaging Reports volume 2, pages 447–454 (2009)Cite this article

Abstract

Advancement of multidetector CT makes it possible to visualize the coronary arteries, as well as ventricular and valvular motion. However, the necessary radiation dose is higher than that associated with x-ray coronary angiography. Recently introduced prospective electrocardiograph (ECG)-triggered CT angiography (CTA), using conventional axial scan, can markedly reduce the radiation dose, while maintaining diagnostic performance, when appropriately applied in selected patients. The prospective ECG-triggered CTA is technically feasible in patients with low and stable heart rate. The indication for the CT examination should be exclusion of obstructive coronary disease, rather than analysis of ventricular and valvular function. The technique is most beneficial for young patients, especially young women, who are at low risk for significant coronary artery disease and for whom radiation dose is of great concern.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

References and Recommended Reading

  1. Abdulla J, Abildstrom SZ, Gotzsche O, et al.: 64-multislice detector computed tomography coronary angiography as potential alternative to conventional coronary angiography: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Heart J 2007, 28:3042–3050.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Budoff MJ, Dowe D, Jollis JG, et al.: Diagnostic performance of 64-multidetector row coronary computed tomographic angiography for evaluation of coronary artery stenosis in individuals without known coronary artery disease. J Am Coll Cardiol 2008, 52:1724–1732.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Meijboom WB, Meijs MF, Schuijf JD, et al.: Diagnostic accuracy of 64-slice computed tomography coronary angiography. A prospective, multicenter, multivendor study. J Am Coll Cardiol 2008, 52:2135–2144.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Einstein AJ, Moser KW, Thompson RC, et al.: Radiation dose to patients from cardiac diagnostic imaging. Circulation 2007, 116:1290–1305.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Ritchie CJ, Godwin JD, Crawford CR, et al.: Minimum scan speeds for suppression of motion artifacts in CT. Radiology 1992, 185:37–42.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Lu B, Mao SS, Zhuang N, et al.: Coronary artery motion during the cardiac cycle and optimal EKG triggering for coronary artery imaging. Invest Radiol 2001, 36:250–256.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Hoffmann MHK, Lessick J, Manzke R, et al.: Automatic determination of minimal cardiac motion phases for computed tomography imaging: initial experience. Eur Radiol 2006, 16:365–373.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Cademartiri F, Mollet NR, Runza G, 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Jakobs TF, Becker CR, Ohnesorge B, et al.: Multislice helical CT of the heart with retrospective ECG gating: reduction of radiation exposure by ECG-controlled tube current modulation. Eur Radiol 2002, 12:1081–1086.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Husmann L, Valenta I, Gaemperli O, et al.: Feasibility of low-dose coronary CT angiography: first experience with prospective ECG-gating. Eur Heart J 2008, 29:191–197.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Petersilka M, Bruder H, Krauss B, et al.: Technical principles of dual source CT. Eur J Radiol 2008, 68:362–368.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Kimura F, Umezawa T, Shen Y, et al.: Coronary CT angiography using prospectively gated axial scans: evaluation of banding artifacts and padding time. Presented at the Radiological Society of North America 2008 Meeting. Chicago, IL; November 30–December 5, 2008.

  14. 1990 recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP Publication 60. Ann ICRP 1990, 21:1–201.

  15. US Food and Drug Administration Center for Devices and Radiological Health: Whole body scanning using computed tomography (CT): what are the radiation risks from CT? Available at www.fda.gov/cdrh/ct/risks.html. Accessed January 2009.

  16. Committee to Assess Health Risks From Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation, National Research Council; Nuclear and Radiation Studies Board: Health Risks From Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Morin RL, Gerber TC, McCollough CH: Radiation dose in computed tomography of the heart. Circulation 2003, 107:917–922.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Einstein AJ, Moser KW, Thompson RC, et al.: Radiation dose to patients from cardiac diagnostic imaging. Circulation 2007, 116:1290–1305.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Hunold P, Vogt FM, Schmermund A, et al.: Radiation exposure during cardiac CT: effective doses at multi-detector row CT and electron-beam CT. Radiology 2003, 226:145–152.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Achenbach S, Giesler T, Ropers D, et al.: Detection of coronary artery stenoses by contrast-enhanced, retrospectively electrocardiographically-gated, multislice spiral computed tomography. Circulation 2001, 103:2535–2538.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Oncel D, Oncel G, Tastan A: Effectiveness of dual-source CT coronary angiography for the evaluation of coronary artery disease in patients with atrial fibrillation: initial experience. Radiology 2007, 249:703–711.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Stolzmann P, Scheffel H, Schertler T, et al.: Radiation dose estimates in dual-source computed tomography coronary angiography. Eur Radiol 2008, 18:592–599.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Hirai N, Horiguchi J, Fujioka C, et al.: Prospective electrocardiography-triggered versus retrospective electrocardiography-gated 64-slice coronary CT angiography: image quality, stenoses assessment and radiation dose. Radiology 2008, 248:424–430.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Shuman WP, Branch KR, May JM, 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Maruyama T, Takada M, Hasuike T, et al.: Radiation dose reduction and coronary assessability of prospective electrocardiogram-gated computed tomography coronary angiography. J Am Coll Cardiol 2008, 52:1450–1455.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Herzog BA, Husmann L, Burkhard N, et al.: Accuracy of low-dose computed tomography coronary angiography using prospective electrocardiogram-triggering: first clinical experience. Eur Heart J 2008, 29:3037–3042.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Scheffel H, Alkadhi H, Leschka S, et al.: Low-dose CT coronary angiography in the step-and-shoot mode: diagnostic performance. Heart 2008, 94:1132–1137.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Stolzmann P, Leschka S, Scheffel H, et al.: Dual-source CT in step-and-shoot mode: noninvasive coronary angiography with low radiation dose. Radiology 2008, 249:71–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Alkadhi H, Stolzmann P, Scheffel H, et al.: Radiation dose of cardiac dual-source CT: the effect of tailoring the protocol to patient-specific parameters. Eur J Radiol 2008, 68:385–391.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Rybicki FJ, Otero HJ, Steigner ML, et al.: Initial evaluation of coronary images from 320-detector row computed tomography. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 2008, 24:535–546.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Ertl-Wagner BB, Hoffmann RT, Bruning R, et al.: Multidetector row CT angiography of the brain at various kilovoltage settings. Radiology 2004, 231:528–535.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Abada HT, Larchez C, Daoud B, et al.: 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Deetjen A, Mollmann S, Conradi G, et al.: Use of automatic exposure control in multislice computed tomography of the coronaries: comparison of 16-slice and 64-slice scanner data with conventional coronary angiography. Heart 2007, 93:1040–1043.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Bluemke DA, Achenbach S, Budoff M, et al.: Noninvasive coronary artery imaging: magnetic resonance angiography and multidetector computed tomography angiography: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association Committee on Cardiovascular Imaging and Intervention of the Council on Cardiovascular Radiology and Intervention, and the Councils on Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Disease in the Young. Circulation 2008, 118:586–606.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Horiguchi J, Kiguchi M, Fujioka C, et al.: Radiation dose, image quality, stenosis measurement, and CT densitometry using ECG-triggered coronary 64-MDCT angiography: a phantom study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2008, 190:315–320.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Gutstein A, Wolak A, Lee C, et al.: Predicting success of prospective and retrospective gating with dual-source coronary computed tomography angiography: development of selection criteria and initial experience. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr 2008, 2:81–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Clinical Radiology, Hiroshima University Hospital, 1-2-3, Kasumi-cho, Minami-ku, Hiroshima, 734-8551, Japan

    Jun Horiguchi

Authors
  1. Jun Horiguchi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hideya Yamamoto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yasuki Kihara
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Katsuhide Ito
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jun Horiguchi.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Horiguchi, J., Yamamoto, H., Kihara, Y. et al. Prospective ECG-triggered sequential versus retrospective ECG-gated spiral CT: Pros and cons. curr cardiovasc imaging rep 2, 447–454 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12410-009-0056-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12410-009-0056-z

Keywords

  • Conventional Coronary Angiography
  • Cardiac Phase
  • Magnetic Resonance Coronary Angiography
  • Coronary Artery Imaging
  • Lifetime Attributable Risk