4.3 Article

Helical prospective ECG-gating in cardiac computed tomography: radiation dose and image quality

期刊

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10554-009-9522-6

关键词

Computed tomography; Coronary arteries; Radiation dose

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Helical prospective ECG-gating (pECG) may reduce radiation dose while maintaining the advantages of helical image acquisition for coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA). Aim of this study was to evaluate helical pECG-gating in CCTA in regards to radiation dose and image quality. 86 patients undergoing 64-multislice CCTA were enrolled. pECG-gating was performed in patients with regular heart rates (HR) < 65 bpm; with the gating window set at 70-85% of the cardiac cycle. All patients received oral and some received additional IV beta-blockers to achieve HR < 65 bpm. In patients with higher or irregular HR, or for functional evaluation, retrospective ECG-gating (rECG) was performed. The average X-ray dose was estimated from the dose length product. Each arterial segment (modified AHA/ACC 17-segment-model) was evaluated on a 4-point image quality scale (4 = excellent; 3 = good, mild artefact; 2 = acceptable, some artefact, 1 = uninterpretable). pECG-gating was applied in 57 patients, rECG-gating in 29 patients. There was no difference in age, gender, body mass index, scan length or tube output settings between both groups. HR in the pECG-group was 54.7 bpm (range, 43-64). The effective radiation dose was significantly lower for patients scanned with pECG-gating with mean 6.9 mSv +/- A 1.9 (range, 2.9-10.7) compared to rECG with 16.9 mSv +/- A 4.1 (P < 0.001), resulting in a mean dose reduction of 59.2%. For pECG-gating, out of 969 coronary segments, 99.3% were interpretable. Image quality was excellent in 90.2%, good in 7.8%, acceptable in 1.3% and non-interpretable in 0.7% (n = 7 segments). For patients with steady heart rates < 65 bpm, helical prospective ECG-gating can significantly lower the radiation dose while maintaining high image quality.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据