Share this Article
Singapore Med J 2013; 54:15-23; http://dx.doi.org/10.11622/smedj.2013005
Coronary computed tomography angiography with prospective electrocardiography triggering: a systematic review of image quality and radiation dose
Sabarudin A, Sun Z, Ng KH
Correpondence: A/Prof Zhonghua Sun, z.sun@curtin.edu.au
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to perform a systematic review of the diagnostic accuracy, image quality and radiation dose of prospective electrocardiography (ECG)-triggered coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA). We searched databases containing studies of CCTA that used prospective ECG-triggering between 2008 and 2011. The effective dose and image quality reported in each study were analysed and compared between the types of multislice CT scanners. We identified 23 studies through this search, with mean assessable coronary segments and effective dose at 96.8% (95% confidence level [CI] 83%, 100%) and 3.6 mSv (95% CI 2.9, 4.3 mSv), respectively. Both quantitative and qualitative assessments of image quality indicated that image quality was achieved in studies using prospective ECG-triggered CCTA, regardless of the type of CT scanners. The pooled estimates of diagnostic values were more than 90% for patient-, vessel- and segment-based assessments. Prospective ECG-triggered CCTA results in high diagnostic accuracy and image quality, with a significantly low radiation dose.
Keywords: coronary artery disease, coronary CT angiography, image quality, prospective ECG-triggering, radiation dose
Singapore Med J 2013; 54:15-23; http://dx.doi.org/10.11622/smedj.2013005
REFERENCES
| 1. Sun Z, Lin C, Davidson R, Dong C, Liao Y. Diagnostic value of 64-slice CT angiography in coronary artery disease: a systematic review. Eur J Radiol 2008; 67:78-84. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2007.07.014 | ||||
| 2. Pontone G, Andreini D, Bartorelli AL, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of coronary computed tomography angiography: a comparison between prospective and retrospective electrocardiogram triggering. J Am Coll Cardiol 2009; 54:346-55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2009.04.027 | ||||
| 3.Sun Z, Ng KH. Prospective versus retrospective ECG-gated multislice CT coronary angiography: A systematic review of radiation dose and diagnostic accuracy. Eur J Radiol 2012; 81:e94-e100. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2011.01.070 | ||||
| 4.Van Mieghem CA, Cademartiri F, Mollet NR, et al. Multislice spiral computed tomography for the evaluation of stent patency after left main coronary artery stenting: a comparison with conventional coronary angiography and intravascular ultrasound. Circulation 2006; 114:645-53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.105.608950 | ||||
| 5. Maruyama T, Takada M, Hasuike T, et al. 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 2008; 52:1450-5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2008.07.048 | ||||
| 6. Efstathopoulos EP, Kelekis NL, Pantos I, et al. Reduction of the estimated radiation dose and associated patient risk with prospective ECG-gated 256-slice CT coronary angiography. Phys Med Biol 2009; 54:5209-22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/54/17/009 | ||||
| 7. Achenbach S, Marwan M, Ropers D, et al. Coronary computed tomography angiography with a consistent dose below 1mSv using prospectively electrocardiogram-triggered high-pitch spiral acquisition. Eur Heart J 2010; 31:340-6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehp470 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehp470 | ||||
| 8. Hosch W, Heye T, Schulz F, et al. Image quality and radiation dose in 256-slice cardiac computed tomography: Comparison of prospective versus retrospective image acquisition protocols. Eur J Radiol 2011; 80:127-35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2010.07.011 | ||||
| 9. Zhang C, Zhang Z, Yan Z, et al. 320-row CT coronary angiography: effect of 100-kV tube voltages on image quality, contrast volume, and radiation dose. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 2011; 27:1059-68. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10554-010-9754-5 | ||||
| 10. Klass O, Walker M, Siebach A, et al. Prospectively gated axial CT coronary angiography: comparison of image quality and effective radiation dose between 64- and 256-slice CT. Eur Radiol 2010; 20:1124-31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-009-1652-7 | ||||
| 11. De France T, Dubois E, Gebow D, et al. Helical prospective ECG-gating in cardiac computed tomography: radiation dose and image quality. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 2010; 26:99-107. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10554-009-9522-6 | ||||
| 12. Weigold WG, Olszeewski ME, Walker MJ. Low-dose prospectively gated 256-slice coronary computed tomographic angiography. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 2009; 25 suppl 2:217-30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10554-009-9439-0 | ||||
| 13. Whiting P, Rutjes AW, Reitsma JB, Bossuyt PM, Kleijnen J. The development of QUADAS: a tool for the quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy included in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol [online] 2003; 3:25. Available at: www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2288/3/25. Accessed November 11, 2011. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-3-25 | ||||
| 14. Esposito A, De Cobelli F, Colantoni C, et al. Gender influence on dose saving allowed by prospective-triggered 64-slice multidetector computed tomography coronary angiography as compared with retrospective-gated mode. Int J Cardiol 2012; 158:253-9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcard.2011.01.039 | ||||
| 15. Huda W, Ogden KM, Khorasani MR. Converting dose-length product to effective dose at CT. Radiology 2008; 248:995-1003. http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2483071964 | ||||
| 16. Austen WG, Edwards JE, Frye RL, et al. 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 1975; 51(4 Suppl):5-40. http://dx.doi.org/10.1161/01.CIR.51.4.5 | ||||
| 17. Arnoldi E, Johnson TR, Rist C, et al. Adequate image quality with reduced radiation dose in prospectively triggered coronary CTA compared with retrospective techniques. Eur Radiol 2009; 19:2147-55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-009-1411-9 | ||||
| 18. Buechel RR, Husmann L, Herzog BA, et al. Low-dose computed tomography coronary angiography with prospective electrocardiogram triggering: feasibility in a large population. J Am Coll Cardiol 2011; 57:332-6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2010.08.634 | ||||
| 19. Carrascosa P, Capunay C, Deviggiano A, et al. Accuracy of low-dose prospectively gated axial coronary CT angiography for the assessment of coronary artery stenosis in patients with stable heart rate. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr 2010; 4:197-205. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcct.2010.04.001 | ||||
| 20. Chen LK, Wu TH, Yang CC, Tsai CJ, Lee JJ. Radiation dose to patients and image quality evaluation from coronary 256-slice computed tomographic angiography. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res A 2010; 619:368-71. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nima.2009.11.002 | ||||
| 21. Duarte R, Fernandez G, Castellon D, Costa JC. Prospective coronary CT angiography 128-MDCT versus retrospective 64-MDCT: improved image quality and reduced radiation dose. Heart Lung Circ 2011; 20:119-25. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.hlc.2010.09.005 | ||||
| 22. Gutstein A, Wolak A, Lee C, et al. Predicting success of prospective and retrospective gating with dual-source coronary computed tomography angiography: development of selection criteria and initial experience. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr 2008; 2:81-90. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcct.2007.12.015 | ||||
| 23. Hirai N, Horiguchi J, Fujioka C, et al. Prospective versus retrospective ECGgated 64-detector coronary CT angiography: assessment of image quality, stenosis, and radiation dose. Radiology 2008; 248:424-30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2482071804 | ||||
| 24. Ko SM, Kim NR, Kim DH, Song MG, Kim JH. Assessment of image quality and radiation dose in prospective ECG-triggered coronary CT angiography compared with retrospective ECG-gated coronary CT angiography. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 2010; 26:93-101. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10554-009-9554-y | ||||
| 25. Lu B, Lu JG, Sun ML, et al. Comparison of diagnostic accuracy and radiation dose between prospective triggering and retrospective gated coronary angiography by dual-source computed tomography. Am J Cardiol 2011; 107:1278-84. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amjcard.2010.12.038 | ||||
| 26. Muenzel D, Noel PB, Dorn F, et al. Coronary CT angiography in step-andshoot technique with 256-slice CT: Impact of the field of view on image quality, craniocaudal coverage, and radiation exposure. Eur J Radiol 2012; 81:1562-8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2010.05.005 | ||||
| 27. Feng Q, Yin Y, Hua X, et al. Prospective ECG triggering versus lowdose retrospective ECG-gated 128-channel CT coronary angiography: comparison of image quality and radiation dose. Clin Radiol 2010; 65:809-14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2010.05.005 | ||||
| 28. Qin J, Liu LY, Meng XC, et al. Prospective versus retrospective ECG gating for 320-detector CT of the coronary arteries: comparison of image quality and patient radiation dose. Clin Imaging 2011; 35:193-7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.clinimag.2010.04.002 | ||||
| 29. Shuman WP, Branch KR, May JM, et al. Prospective versus retrospective ECG gating for 64-detector CT of the coronary arteries: comparison of image quality and patient radiation dose. Radiology 2008; 248:431-7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2482072192 | ||||
| 30. Shuman WP, Branch KR, May JM, et al. Whole-chest 64-MDCT of emergency department patients with nonspecific chest pain: radiation dose and coronary artery image quality with prospective ECG triggering versus retrospective ECG gating. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2009; 192:1662-7. http://dx.doi.org/10.2214/AJR.08.1872 | ||||
| 31. Stolzmann P, Goetti R, Baumueller S, et al. Prospective and retrospective ECG-gating for CT coronary angiography perform similarly accurate at low heart rates. Eur J Radiol 2011; 79:85-91. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2009.12.016 | ||||
| 32. Xu L, Yang L, Zhang Z, et al. Low-dose adaptive sequential scan for dual-source CT coronary angiography in patients with high heart rate: Comparison with retrospective ECG gating. Eur J Radiol 2010; 76:183-7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2009.06.003 | ||||
| 33. Pannu HK, Alvarez W, Fishman EK. β-blockers for cardiac CT: a primer for the radiologist. Am J Roentgenol 2006; 186:S341-5. http://dx.doi.org/10.2214/AJR.04.1944 | ||||
| 34. Guo SL, Guo YM, Zhai YN, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of first generation dual-source computed tomography in the assessment of coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis from 24 studies. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 2011; 27:755-71. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10554-010-9690-4 | ||||
| 35. Sun Z. Multislice CT angiography in cardiac imaging: prospective ECGgating or retrospective ECG-gating? Biomed Imaging Interv J 2010; 6:e4. http://dx.doi.org/10.2349/biij.6.1.e4 | ||||
| 36. Von Ballmoos MW, Haring B, Juillerat P, Alkadhi H. Meta-analysis: diagnostic performance of low-radiation-dose coronary computed tomography angiography. Ann Intern Med 2011; 154:413-20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1059/0003-4819-154-6-201103150-00007 | ||||
| 37. Sun Z, Ng KH. Diagnostic value of coronary CT angiography with prospective ECG-gating in the diagnosis of coronary artery disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 2012; 28: 2109-19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10554-011-0006-0 | ||||
| 38. Earls JP, Berman EL, Urban BA, et al. Prospectively gated transverse coronary CT angiography versus retrospectively gated helical technique: improved image quality and reduced radiation dose. Radiology 2008; 246:742-53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2463070989 | ||||
| 39. Earls JP. How to use a prospective gated technique for cardiac CT. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr 2009; 3:45-51. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcct.2008.10.013 | ||||
| 40. Sabarudin A, Sun Z, Ng KH. Radiation dose associated with coronary CT angiography and invasive coronary angiography: An experimental study of the effect of dose-saving strategies. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2012; 150:180-7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/rpd/ncr377 | ||||
| 41. Coles DR, Smail MA, Negus IS, et al. Comparison of radiation doses from multislice computed tomography coronary angiography and conventional diagnostic angiography. J Am Coll Cardiol 2006; 47:1840-5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2005.11.078 | ||||
| 42. Alkadhi H, Stolzmann P, Desbiolles L, et al. Low-dose, 128-slice, dualsource CT coronary angiography: accuracy and radiation dose of the highpitch and the step-and-shoot mode. Heart 2010; 96:933-8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/hrt.2009.189100 | ||||
| 43. Hendel RC, Budoff MJ, Cardella JF, et al. ACC/AHA/ACR/ASE/ASNC/HRS/NASCI/RSNA/SAIP/SCAI/SCCT/SCMR/SIR 2008 key data elements and definitions for cardiac imaging A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Data Standards (Writing Committee to Develop Clinical Data Standards for Cardiac Imaging). J Am Coll Cardiol 2009; 53:91-124. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2008.09.006 | ||||
| 44. Hoe J, Toh KH. First experience with 320-row multidetector CT coronary angiography scanning with prospective electrocardiogram gating to reduce radiation dose. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr 2009; 3:257-61. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcct.2009.05.013 | ||||