Advertisement

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

  • Tony DeFrance
  • Eric Dubois
  • Dan Gebow
  • Alex Ramirez
  • Florian Wolf
  • Gudrun M. Feuchtner
Original Paper

Abstract

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 ± 1.9 (range, 2.9–10.7) compared to rECG with 16.9 mSv ± 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.

Keywords

Computed tomography Coronary arteries Radiation dose 

Abbreviations

CT

Computed tomography

CCTA

Cardiac computed tomography angiography

ECG

Electrocardiogramm

bpm

Beats per minute

pECG

Prospective ECG-gating

rECG

Retrospective ECG-gating

Notes

Acknowledgments

Conflict of interest statement

TD is member of the Speakers Bureau for Toshiba Medical Systems.

References

  1. 1.
    Budoff MJ, Dowe D, Jollis JG, Gitter M, Sutherland J, Halamert E, Scherer M, Bellinger R, Martin A, Benton R, Delago A, Min JK (2008) Diagnostic performance of 64-multidetector row coronary computed tomographic angiography for evaluation of coronary artery stenosis in individuals without known coronary artery disease: results from the prospective multicenter ACCURACY (assessment by Coronary computed tomographic angiography of individuals undergoing invasive coronary angiography) trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 52(21):1724–1732CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mowatt G, Cummins E, Waugh N, Walker S, Cook J, Jia X, Hillis GS, Fraser C (2008) Systematic review of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of 64-slice or higher computed tomography angiography as alternative to invasive coronary angiography in the investigation of coronary artery disease. Health Technol Assess 12(17):iii–iv, ix–143Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Einstein AJ, Henzlova MJ, Rajagopalan S (2007) Estimating risk of cancer associated with radiation exposure from 64-slice computed tomography coronary angiography. JAMA 298(3):317–323CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hausleiter J, Meyer T, Hadamitzky M et al (2006) Radiation dose estimates from cardiac multislice computed tomography in daily practice: impact of different scanning protocols on effective dose estimates. Circulation. 113:1305–1310CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mollet N, Cademartiri F, van Mieghem C, Runza G, McFadden EP, Baks T, Serruys PW, Krestin GP, de Feyter PJ (2005) High-resolution spiral computed tomography coronary angiography in patients referred for diagnostic conventional coronary angiography. Circulation 112:2318–2323CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jakobs TF, Becker CR, Ohnesorge B, Flohr T, Suess C, Schoepf UJ, Reiser MF (2002) Multislice helical CT of the heart with retrospective ECG gating: reduction of radiation exposure by ECG-controlled tube current modulation. Eur Radiol 12(5):1081–1086CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hermann F, Martinoff S, Meyert T et al (2008) Reduction of radiation dose estimates in cardiac 64-slice CT angiography in patients after coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Invest Radiol 43(4):253–260CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Earls JP, Berman EL, Urban BA, Curry CA, Lane JL, Jennings RS, McCulloch CC, Hsieh J, Londt JH (2008) Prospectively gated transverse coronary CT angiography versus retrospectively gated helical technique: improved image quality and reduced radiation dose. Radiology 246(3):742–753CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hirai N, Horiguchi J, Fujioka C, Kiguchi M, Yamamoto H, Matsuura N, Kitagawa T, Teragawa H, Kohno N, Ito K (2008) Prospective versus retrospective ECG-gated 64-detector coronary CT angiography: assessment of image quality, stenosis, and radiation dose. Radiology 248(2):424–430CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Shuman WP, Branch KR, May JM, Mitsumori LM, Lockhart DW, Dubinsky TJ, Warren BH, Caldwell JH (2008) Prospective versus retrospective ECG gating for 64-detector CT of the coronary arteries: comparison of image quality and patient radiation dose. Radiology. 248(2):431–437CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Scheffel H, Alkadhi H, Leschka S, Plass A, Desbiolles L, Guber I, Krauss T, Gruenenfelder J, Genoni M, Luescher TF, Marincek B, Stolzmann P (2008) Low-dose ct coronary angiography in the step-and-shoot mode: diagnostic performance. Heart. 2008 [Epub ahead of print]Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Stolzmann P, Leschka S, Scheffel H, Krauss T, Desbiolles L, Plass A, Genoni M, Flohr TG, Wildermuth S, Marincek B, Alkadhi H (2008) Dual-source CT in step-and-shoot mode: noninvasive coronary angiography with low radiation dose. Radiology 249(1):71–80CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hendel RC, Patel MR, Cramer CM (2006) et al. ACCF/ACR/SCCT/SCMR/ASNC/NASCI/SCAI/SIR 2006. Appropriateness criteria for cardiac computed tomography and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging. J Am Coll Cardiol 48:1475–1497CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Menzel HG, Schibilla H, Teunen D eds (2000) European guidelines on quality criteria for computed tomography. Luxembourg: European Commission. Publication No. EUR 16262 EN. Appendix I: guidelines on radiation dose to the patientGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Landis J, Koch G (1977) The measurement of observer agreement with categorical data. Biometrics 33:159–174CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Austen WG, Edwards JE, Frye RL, Gensini GG, Gott VL, Griffith LS, McGoon DC, Murphy ML, Roe BB (1975) A reporting system on patients evaluated for coronary artery disease: report of the Ad Hoc committee for grading of coronary artery disease, Council on cardiovascular surgery, American heart association. Circulation. 51:5–40PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Maruyama T, Takada M, Hasuike T, Yoshikawa A, Namimatsu E, Yoshizumi T (2008) Radiation dose reduction and coronary assessability of prospective electrocardiogram-gated computed tomography coronary angiography: comparison with retrospective electrocardiogram-gated helical scan. J Am Coll Cardiol 52:1450–1455CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Stolzmann P, Scheffel H, Schertler T et al (2008) Radiation dose estimates in dual-source computed tomography coronary angiography. Eur Radiol 18:592–599CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Leschka S, Stolzmann P, Schmid FT, Scheffel H, Stinn B, Marincek B, Alkadhi H, Wildermuth S (2008) Low kilovoltage cardiac dual-source CT: attenuation, noise, and radiation dose. Eur Radiol 18(9):1809–1817CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Feuchtner GM, Jodocy D, Klauser A et al (2009) Radiation dose reduction by using 100-kV tube voltage in cardiac 64-slice computed tomography: a comparative study. Eur J Radiol. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2009.07.012
  21. 21.
    Gutstein A, Dey D, Cheng V et al (2008) Algorithm for radiation dose reduction with helical dual source coronary computed tomography angiography in clinical practice. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr 2(5):311–322CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Barreto M, Schoenhagen P, Nair A et al (2008) Potential of dual-energy computed tomography to characterize atherosclerotic plaque: ex vivo assessment of human coronary arteries in comparison to histology. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr 2(5):234–242CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Alkadhi H, Stolzmann P, Scheffel H, Desbiolles L, Baumüller S, Plass A, Genoni M, Marincek B, Leschka S (2008) Radiation dose of cardiac dual-source CT: the effect of tailoring the protocol to patient-specific parameters. Eur J Radiol 68(3):385–391CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Cury RC, Nieman K, Shapiro MD, Butler J, Nomura CH, Ferencik M, Hoffmann U, Abbara S, Jassal DS, Yasuda T, Gold HK, Jang IK, Brady TJ (2008) Comprehensive assessment of myocardial perfusion defects, regional wall motion, and left ventricular function by using 64-section multidetector CT. Radiology. 248(2):466–475CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Feuchtner GM, Dichtl W, Friedrich GJ et al (2006) Multislice computed tomography for detection of patients with aortic valve stenosis and quantification of severity. J Am Coll Cardiol 47:1410–1417CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Feuchtner GM, Dichtl W, Müller S, Jodocy D, Schachner T, Klauser A, Bonatti JO (2008) 64-MDCT for diagnosis of aortic regurgitation in patients referred to CT coronary angiography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 191(1):W1–W7CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Leschka S, Stolzmann P, Desbiolles L, Baumueller S, Goetti R, Schertler T, Scheffel H, Plass A, Falk V, Feuchtner G, Marincek B, Alkadhi H (2009) Diagnostic accuracy of high-pitch dual-source CT for the assessment of coronary stenoses: first experience. Eur Radiol (in press)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lell M, Marwan M, Schepis T, Pflederer T, Anders K, Flohr T, Allmendinger T, Kalender W, Ertel D, Thierfelder C, Kuettner A, Ropers D, Daniel WG, Achenbach S (2009) Prospectively ECG-triggered high-pitch spiral acquisition for coronary CT angiography using dual source CT: technique and initial experience. Eur Radiol [Epub ahead of print]Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tony DeFrance
    • 1
    • 2
  • Eric Dubois
    • 5
  • Dan Gebow
    • 1
  • Alex Ramirez
    • 1
  • Florian Wolf
    • 4
  • Gudrun M. Feuchtner
    • 3
  1. 1.CVCTA EducationSan FranciscoUSA
  2. 2.Department of CardiologyStanford UniversityPalo AltoUSA
  3. 3.Department of Radiology IIInnsbruck Medical UniversityInnsbruckAustria
  4. 4.Department of RadiologyVienna Medical UniversityViennaAustria
  5. 5.Ikazia HospitalRotterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations