4.5 Article

Prospective electrocardiography-triggered CT angiography of the great thoracic vessels in infants and toddlers with congenital heart disease: Feasibility and image quality

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY
卷 80, 期 3, 页码 E440-E445

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2011.01.032

关键词

Congenital heart disease; Children; Computed tomography angiography

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To investigate feasibility and image quality and to calculate radiation dose estimates for computed tomography angiography (CTA) of the great thoracic vessels in infants and toddlers with congenital heart disease (CHD) using end-systolic prospective electrocardiography-triggered sequential dual-source data acquisition. Methods: This study was institutional review board approved; informed consent was obtained. Twenty children (age 1.2 +/- 1.1 years) underwent 22 prospective ECG-triggered sequential dual-source CTA examinations (Somatom Definition, Siemens) with tube current (250 mAs/rot) centered at 250 ms past the R-peak in the cardiac cycle (end-systole). Tube voltage was set to 80 kV. Image quality was evaluated by two readers independently using a four-point grading scale (4 = excellent, 1 = non-diagnostic). Radiation dose estimates were calculated from the dose-length-product (DLP). Results: All CT images showed diagnostic image quality (mean score 3.67 +/- 0.67, kappa = 0.85). Stair-step artifacts were present in one and breathing artifacts in 4 patients, with neither impairing diagnostic image quality. Mean heart rate (bpm) was 107.6 +/- 12.1 (76-130), mean heart rate variability (bpm) was 2.5 +/- 2.0 (1-9). Mean scan length (mm) was 90.7 +/- 22.7 (50-134). Mean estimated effective dose was 0.32 +/- 0.11 mSv. Conclusion: Prospective ECG-triggered sequential dual source CTA is feasible in infants and toddlers with CHD, thereby allowing almost motion-free imaging of the great thoracic vessels with the benefit of a low radiation dose. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.5
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