Principles of Cardiac CT Image Acquisition

  • Thomas HenzlerEmail author
  • Patricia Carrascosa
  • Brian S. Ko
  • Ronen Rubinshtein
Part of the Contemporary Medical Imaging book series (CMI)


First-generation cardiac CT imaging techniques comprise simultaneous recording of the ECG signal combined with continuous low-pitch spiral scan acquisition with relatively high incident radiation dose. Because of the increasing number of cardiac CT studies and anticipated further growth, the contribution of cardiac CT to the radiation exposure of the population may not be negligible. With growing radiation dose awareness, a variety of different cardiac CT acquisition techniques have been developed over the past 15 years improving the dose efficiency of ECG-synchronized cardiac CT. Recent innovations have demonstrated that radiation dose at cardiac CT can be substantially reduced without detrimental effects on diagnostic image quality including single-heartbeat acquisitions, ECG-based tube current modulation, low tube voltage imaging, and advances in CT raw data reconstruction by means of iterative image reconstruction. New-generation CT scanners allow excellent image quality in the majority of cases and in a wider range of heart rates or rhythms. The aim of this chapter is to provide an overview on the various imaging acquisition techniques used in cardiac CT including the various concepts developed by the main CT vendors.


Cardiac CT Radiation exposure in cardiac CT Retrospective ECG gating Prospective ECG triggering in cardiac CT Image quality in cardiac CT 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Bastarrika G, Lee YS, Huda W, Ruzsics B, Costello P, Schoepf UJ. CT of coronary artery disease. Radiology. 2009;253:317–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Meijboom WB, Weustink AC, Pugliese F, et al. Comparison of diagnostic accuracy of 64-slice computed tomography coronary angiography in women versus men with angina pectoris. Am J Cardiol. 2007;100:1532–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Roberts WT, Bax JJ, Davies LC. Cardiac CT and CT coronary angiography: technology and application. Heart. 2008;94:781–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Moscariello A, Takx RA, Schoepf UJ, et al. Coronary CT angiography: image quality, diagnostic accuracy, and potential for radiation dose reduction using a novel iterative image reconstruction technique-comparison with traditional filtered back projection. Eur Radiol. 2011;21:2130–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Den Harder AM, Willemink MJ, De Ruiter QM, et al. Dose reduction with iterative reconstruction for coronary CT angiography: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Radiol. 2016;89:20150068.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brenner D, Elliston C, Hall E, Berdon W. Estimated risks of radiation-induced fatal cancer from pediatric CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2001;176:289–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brenner DJ. Radiation risks potentially associated with low-dose CT screening of adult smokers for lung cancer. Radiology. 2004;231:440–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brenner DJ, Hall EJ. Risk of cancer from diagnostic X-rays. Lancet. 2004;363:2192; author reply −3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Brenner DJ, Hall EJ. Computed tomography – an increasing source of radiation exposure. N Engl J Med. 2007;357:2277–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Einstein AJ, Moser KW, Thompson RC, Cerqueira MD, Henzlova MJ. Radiation dose to patients from cardiac diagnostic imaging. Circulation. 2007;116:1290–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Primak AN, McCollough CH, Bruesewitz MR, Zhang J, Fletcher JG. Relationship between noise, dose, and pitch in cardiac multi-detector row CT. Radiographics. 2006;26:1785–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hausleiter J, Meyer T, Hermann F, et al. Estimated radiation dose associated with cardiac CT angiography. JAMA. 2009;301:500–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Efstathopoulos EP, Kelekis NL, Pantos I, et al. Reduction of the estimated radiation dose and associated patient risk with prospective ECG-gated 256-slice CT coronary angiography. Phys Med Biol. 2009;54:5209–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Flohr TG, Leng S, Yu L, et al. Dual-source spiral CT with pitch up to 3.2 and 75 ms temporal resolution: image reconstruction and assessment of image quality. Med Phys. 2009;36:5641–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Achenbach S, Marwan M, Ropers D, et al. Coronary computed tomography angiography with a consistent dose below 1 mSv using prospectively electrocardiogram-triggered high-pitch spiral acquisition. Eur Heart J. 2010;31:340–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Meyer M, Haubenreisser H, Schoepf UJ, et al. Closing in on the K edge: coronary CT angiography at 100, 80, and 70 kV-initial comparison of a second- versus a third-generation dual-source CT system. Radiology. 2014;273:373–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Poll LW, Cohnen M, Brachten S, Ewen K, Modder U. Dose reduction in multi-slice CT of the heart by use of ECG-controlled tube current modulation (“ECG pulsing”): phantom measurements. Rofo. 2002;174:1500–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    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;113:1305–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Huda W, Scalzetti EM, Levin G. Technique factors and image quality as functions of patient weight at abdominal CT. Radiology. 2000;217:430–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Niemann T, Henry S, Duhamel A, et al. Pediatric chest CT at 70 kVp: a feasibility study in 129 children. Pediatr Radiol. 2014;44:1347–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Leschka S, Stolzmann P, Schmid FT, et al. Low kilovoltage cardiac dual-source CT: attenuation, noise, and radiation dose. Eur Radiol. 2008;18:1809–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    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;33:4236–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Renker M, Nance JW Jr, Schoepf UJ, et al. Evaluation of heavily calcified vessels with coronary CT angiography: comparison of iterative and filtered back projection image reconstruction. Radiology. 2011;260:390–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Renker M, Ramachandra A, Schoepf UJ, et al. Iterative image reconstruction techniques: applications for cardiac CT. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2011;5:225–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Naoum C, Blanke P, Leipsic J. Iterative reconstruction in cardiac CT. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2015;9:255–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Meinel FG, De Cecco CN, Schoepf UJ, et al. First-arterial-pass dual-energy CT for assessment of myocardial blood supply: do we need rest, stress, and delayed acquisition? Comparison with SPECT. Radiology. 2014;270:708–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Weininger M, Schoepf UJ, Ramachandra A, et al. Adenosine-stress dynamic real-time myocardial perfusion CT and adenosine-stress first-pass dual-energy myocardial perfusion CT for the assessment of acute chest pain: initial results. Eur J Radiol. 2012;81:3703–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Schwarz F, Nance JW Jr, Ruzsics B, Bastarrika G, Sterzik A, Schoepf UJ. Quantification of coronary artery calcium on the basis of dual-energy coronary CT angiography. Radiology. 2012;264:700–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Apfaltrer P, Schoendube H, Schoepf UJ, et al. Enhanced temporal resolution at cardiac CT with a novel CT image reconstruction algorithm: initial patient experience. Eur J Radiol. 2013;82:270–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Mangold S, Wichmann JL, Schoepf UJ, et al. Automated tube voltage selection for radiation dose and contrast medium reduction at coronary CT angiography using 3(rd) generation dual-source CT. Eur Radiol. 2016;26:3608–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Latif MA, Sanchez FW, Sayegh K, et al. Volumetric single-beat coronary computed tomography angiography: relationship of image quality, heart rate, and body mass index. Initial patient experience with a new computed tomography scanner. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2016;40:763–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Pontone G, Andreini D, Bertella E, et al. Impact of an intra-cycle motion correction algorithm on overall evaluability and diagnostic accuracy of computed tomography coronary angiography. Eur Radiol. 2016;26:147–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Pontone G, Bertella E, Mushtaq S, et al. Coronary artery disease: diagnostic accuracy of CT coronary angiography – a comparison of high and standard spatial resolution scanning. Radiology. 2014;271:688–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Andreini D, Pontone G, Mushtaq S, et al. Low-dose CT coronary angiography with a novel IntraCycle motion-correction algorithm in patients with high heart rate or heart rate variability. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2015;16:1093–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Carrascosa P, Deviggiano A, Capunay C, De Zan MC, Goldsmit A, Rodriguez-Granillo GA. Effect of intracycle motion correction algorithm on image quality and diagnostic performance of computed tomography coronary angiography in patients with suspected coronary artery disease. Acad Radiol. 2015;22:81–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    So A, Lee TY, Imai Y, et al. Quantitative myocardial perfusion imaging using rapid kVp switch dual-energy CT: preliminary experience. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2011;5:430–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Carrascosa P, Deviggiano A, Leipsic JA, et al. Dual energy imaging and intracycle motion correction for CT coronary angiography in patients with intermediate to high likelihood of coronary artery disease. Clin Imaging. 2015;39:1000–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Rodriguez-Granillo GA, Carrascosa P, Cipriano S, et al. Beam hardening artifact reduction using dual energy computed tomography: implications for myocardial perfusion studies. Cardiovasc Diagn Ther. 2015;5:79–85.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Xu L, Yang L, Fan Z, Yu W, Lv B, Zhang Z. Diagnostic performance of 320-detector CT coronary angiography in patients with atrial fibrillation: preliminary results. Eur Radiol. 2011;21:936–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Kang EJ, Lee J, Lee KN, Kown H, Ha DH, Kim RB. An initial randomised study assessing free-breathing CCTA using 320-detector CT. Eur Radiol. 2013;23:1199–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Ko BS, Cameron JD, Leung M, et al. Combined CT coronary angiography and stress myocardial perfusion imaging for hemodynamically significant stenoses in patients with suspected coronary artery disease: a comparison with fractional flow reserve. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2012;5:1097–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Rochitte CE, George RT, Chen MY, et al. Computed tomography angiography and perfusion to assess coronary artery stenosis causing perfusion defects by single photon emission computed tomography: the CORE320 study. Eur Heart J. 2014;35(17):1120–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Wong DT, Ko BS, Cameron JD, et al. Transluminal attenuation gradient in coronary computed tomography angiography is a novel noninvasive apporach to the identification of functionally significant coronary artery stenosis: a comparison with fractional flow reserve. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;61:1271–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Kikuchi Y, Oyama-Manabe N, Naya M, et al. Quantification of myocardial blood flow using dynamic 320-row multi-detector CT as compared with (1)(5)O-H(2)O PET. Eur Radiol. 2014;24:1547–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Hsiao EM, Rybicki FJ, Steigner M. CT coronary angiography: 256-slice and 320-detector row scanners. Curr Cardiol Rep. 2010;12:68–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Kim R, Park EA, Lee W, Chung JW. Feasibility of 320-row area detector CT coronary angiography using 40 mL of contrast material: assessment of image quality and diagnostic accuracy. Eur Radiol. 2016;26(11):3802–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Chen MY, Shanbhag SM, Arai AE. Submillisievert median radiation dose for coronary angiography with a second-generation 320-detector row CT scanner in 107 consecutive patients. Radiology. 2013;267:76–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Wong DT, Soh SY, Ko BS, et al. Superior CT coronary angiography image quality at lower radiation exposure with second generation 320-detector row CT in patients with elevated heart rate: a comparison with first generation 320-detector row CT. Cardiovasc Diagn Ther. 2014;4:299–306.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Tomizawa N, Maeda E, Akahane M, Torigoe R, Kiryu S, Ohtomo K. Coronary CT angiography using the second-generation 320-detector row CT: assessment of image quality and radiation dose in various heart rates compared with the first-generation scanner. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2013;29:1613–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Lim J, Park EA, Lee W, Shim H, Chung JW. Image quality and radiation reduction of 320-row area detector CT coronary angiography with optimal tube voltage selection and an automatic exposure control system: comparison with body mass index-adapted protocol. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2015;31(Suppl 1):23–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Lee CH, Goo JM, Ye HJ, et al. Radiation dose modulation techniques in the multidetector CT era: from basics to practice. Radiographics. 2008;28:1451–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Choi AD, Leifer ES, Yu J, et al. Prospective evaluation of the influence of iterative reconstruction on the reproducibility of coronary calcium quantification in reduced radiation dose 320 detector row CT. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2016;10:359–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Tatsugami F, Higaki T, Fukumoto W, et al. Radiation dose reduction for coronary artery calcium scoring at 320-detector CT with adaptive iterative dose reduction 3D. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2015;31:1045–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Gervaise A, Osemont B, Lecocq S, et al. CT image quality improvement using Adaptive Iterative Dose Reduction with wide-volume acquisition on 320-detector CT. Eur Radiol. 2012;22:295–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Yoo RE, Park EA, Lee W, et al. Image quality of adaptive iterative dose reduction 3D of coronary CT angiography of 640-slice CT: comparison with filtered back-projection. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2013;29:669–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Chen MY, Steigner ML, Leung SW, et al. Simulated 50% radiation dose reduction in coronary CT angiography using adaptive iterative dose reduction in three-dimensions (AIDR3D). Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2013;29:1167–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Humana Press 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas Henzler
    • 1
    Email author
  • Patricia Carrascosa
    • 2
  • Brian S. Ko
    • 3
  • Ronen Rubinshtein
    • 4
  1. 1.Institute of Clinical Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Mannheim, Medical Faculty Mannheim, Heidelberg UniversityHeidelbergGermany
  2. 2.Department of Cardiovascular ImagingDiagnóstico MaipúBuenos AiresArgentina
  3. 3.Department of Medicine Monash Medical Centre (MMC), Monash Cardiovascular Research Centre, MonashHEART, Monash Health and Monash UniversityMelbourneAustralia
  4. 4.Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Lady Davis Carmel Medical Center, The Ruth and Bruce Rappaport School of Medicine, Technion-Israel Institute of TechnologyHaifaIsrael

Personalised recommendations