4.7 Article

Diagnostic accuracy of high-pitch dual-source CT for the assessment of coronary stenoses: first experience

期刊

EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY
卷 19, 期 12, 页码 2896-2903

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00330-009-1618-9

关键词

Dual-source CT; Coronary angiography; High pitch; Catheter coronary angiography; Coronary artery disease; Diagnostic accuracy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The objective was to prospectively investigate the diagnostic accuracy of high-pitch (HP) dual-source computed tomography coronary angiography (CTCA) compared with catheter coronary angiography (CCA) for the diagnosis of significant coronary stenoses. Thirty-five patients (seven women; mean age 62 +/- 8 years) underwent both CTCA and CCA. CTCA was performed with a second-generation dual-source CT system permitting data acquisition at an HP of 3.4. Patients with heart rates > 60 bpm were excluded from study enrolment. All coronary segments were evaluated by two blinded and independent observers with regard to image quality on a four-point scale (1: excellent to 4: non-diagnostic) and for the presence of significant coronary stenoses (defined as diameter narrowing exceeding 50%). CCA served as the standard of reference. Radiation dose values were calculated using the dose-length product. Diagnostic image quality was found in 99% of all segments (455/459). Non-diagnostic image quality occurred in a single patient with a sudden increase in heart rate immediately before and during CTCA. Taking segments with non-evaluative image quality as positive for disease, the sensitivity, specificity and positive and negative predictive values were 94, 96, 80 and 99% per segment and 100, 91, 88 and 100% per patient. The effective radiation dose was on average 0.9 +/- 0.1 mSv. In patients with heart rates a parts per thousand currency sign60 bpm, CTCA using the HP mode of the dual-source CT system is associated with high diagnostic accuracy for the assessment of coronary artery stenoses at sub-milliSievert doses.

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

4.7
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