Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Saitama Medical University International Medical Center, 1397-1 Yamane, Hidaka, 350-1298, Japan.
Jpn J Radiol. 2010 Jul;28(6):437-45. doi: 10.1007/s11604-010-0448-7. Epub 2010 Jul 27.
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.
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).
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%.
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.
我们比较了使用 64 排 CT 进行前瞻性心电门控冠状动脉 CT 血管造影(prospective CCTA)与回顾性 CCTA 的阶梯伪影和辐射剂量,并确定前瞻性 CCTA 的最佳填充时间(PT)。
我们回顾性评估了 183 例[平均心率(HR)<65 次/分,最大 HR 不稳定性<5 次/分]接受 CCTA 的患者。我们对 53 例回顾性 CCTA 和 130 例前瞻性 CCTA(PT 200ms,n=32;PT 50ms,n=98)的患者进行了阶梯伪影评分(1 分为严重,5 分为无),并评估了有效剂量。
回顾性和前瞻性 CCTA 的平均伪影评分均为 4.3。然而,前瞻性 CCTA 评分<3(无法评估)的动脉更多(P<0.001)。200ms 和 50ms PT 的前瞻性 CCTA 平均评分分别为 4.1 和 4.3(无显著差异)。前瞻性 CCTA 的辐射剂量降低了 59.1%至 80.7%。
前瞻性 CCTA 降低了辐射剂量,并允许在大多数情况下进行诊断成像,但与回顾性 CCTA 相比,显示出更多无法评估的伪影。在平均 HR<65 次/分和 HR 不稳定性<5 次/分的患者中,使用 50ms 而不是 200ms PT 似乎可以保持图像质量。