Cargando…

Comparison of image quality and radiation dose between prospectively ECG-triggered and retrospectively ECG-gated CT angiography: Establishing heart rate cut-off values in first-generation dual-source CT

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate radiation dose and image quality of prospectively electrocardiography (ECG)-triggered and retrospectively ECG-gated coronary computed tomography (CT) angiography and to establish cut-off values of heart rates (HRs) for each technique in firstgeneration dual-source CT. METHODS:...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ünal, Emre, Yıldız, A. Elçin, Güler, Ezgi, Karcaaltıncaba, Muşturay, Akata, Deniz, Kılınçer, Abidin, Atlı, Eray, Topçuoğlu, Melih, Hazırolan, Tuncay
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Kare Publishing 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5368488/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25592108
http://dx.doi.org/10.5152/akd.2014.5720
Descripción
Sumario:OBJECTIVE: To evaluate radiation dose and image quality of prospectively electrocardiography (ECG)-triggered and retrospectively ECG-gated coronary computed tomography (CT) angiography and to establish cut-off values of heart rates (HRs) for each technique in firstgeneration dual-source CT. METHODS: A total of 200 consecutive patients with suspected coronary artery disease were accepted into the study. Patients were selected randomly for each technique (prospective triggering group n=99, mean age 55.85±10.74 and retrospective gating group n=101, mean age 53.38±11.58). Two independent radiologists scored coronary artery segments for image quality using a 5-point scale. Also, attenuation values of each coronary artery segment and dose-length product values were measured. For each technique, cut-off HR values were determined for the best image quality. RESULTS: Mean image quality scores and attenuation values were found to be higher in the prospective triggering group (p<0.05). Mean radiation dose was 73% lower for the prospective triggering group (p<0.01). The cut-off HR values for good image quality scores were ≤67 beats per minute (bpm) and ≤80 bpm for the prospective triggering and retrospective gating groups, respectively (p<0.05). Increased HR (≥68 and ≥81 bpm, respectively) had negative effects on image quality (p<0.05). CONCLUSION: The prospective ECG triggering technique has better image quality scores than retrospective ECG gating, particularly in patients who have an HR of less than 68 bpm. Also, a 73% radiation dose reduction can be achieved with prospective ECG triggering. In patients with higher heart rates, retrospective ECG gating is recommended.