Third generation dual-source CT coronary angiography with high-pitch spiral mode versus prospectively-gated sequential mode: comparison of radiation exposure and image quality

Abstract

Objectives: To compare high-pitch spiral (HPS) and prospectively-gated step-and-shoot (SAS) coronary CT angiography (CCTA) using third generation dual-source CT regarding objective and subjective image quality parameters and radiation exposure.

Methods: Eighty pairs of patients matched for gender, age, heart rate and BMI were enrolled in this retrospective study. High-pitch spiral and prospectively ECG-gated sequential CCTA were performed using third generation dual-source CT. The signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) in the left ventricle were calculated for each group. Image quality were also scored using four-point scale. Student t-test was used to compare SNR, CNR and mean effective dose values (ED) and Wilcoxon test was used to compare image quality scores. Interrater aggreement were evaluated using Cohen’s kappa statistics.

Results: Between-group differences in terms of age, gender, BMI, heart rate, and Agatston score were statistically not significant. Mean SNR and CNR was higher in prospective SAS protocol (16.5 ± 6.2 vs. 14.7 ± 4.9, p = 0.047 and 13.0 ± 5.2 vs. 11.2 ± 4.3, p = 0.02). Image quality scores showed no significant difference between two scan protocols (p > 0.05). Regarding radiation exposure, CT dose index (CTDIvol), dose length product (DLP) and ED was significantly lower for high-pitch group (p < 0.0001).

Conclusions: HPS CCTA using DSCT enables > 70% dose reduction while maintaining the image quality compared to prospectively ECG-gated SAS protocol. Therefore, HPS CCTA protocol can be preferred in patients appropriate for prospective ECG-triggered protocol.

Keywords

• Coronary CT angiography
• high-pitch
• image quality
• radiation dose

References

1. 1. Taylor AJ, Cerqueira M, Hodgson JM, Mark D, Min J, O'Gara P, et al. ACCF/SCCT/ACR/AHA/ASE/ASNC/NASCI/SCAI/SCMR 2010 appropriate use criteria for cardiac computed tomography. A report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Appropriate Use Criteria Task Force, the Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, the American College of Radiology, the American Heart Association, the American Society of Echocardiography, the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, the North American Society for Cardiovascular Imaging, the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance. J Am Coll Cardiol 2010;56:1864-94.
2. 2. Hendel RC, Patel MR, Kramer CM, Poon M, Hendel RC, Carr JC, et al. ACCF/ACR/SCCT/SCMR/ASNC/NASCI/SCAI/SIR 2006 appropriateness criteria for cardiac computed tomography and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Quality Strategic Directions Committee Appropriateness Criteria Working Group, American College of Radiology, Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance, American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, North American Society for Cardiac Imaging, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and Society of Interventional Radiology. J Am Coll Cardiol 2006;48:1475-97.
3. 3. Budoff MJ, Achenbach S, Blumenthal RS, Carr JJ, Goldin JG, Greenland P, et al. Assessment of coronary artery disease by cardiac computed tomography: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association Committee on Cardiovascular Imaging and Intervention, Council on Cardiovascular Radiology and Intervention, and Committee on Cardiac Imaging, Council on Clinical Cardiology. Circulation 2006;114:1761-91.
4. 4. Alkadhi H. Radiation dose of cardiac CT--what is the evidence? Eur Radiol 2009;19:1311-5.
5. 5. Hsieh J, Londt J, Vass M, Li J, Tang X, Okerlund D. Step-and-shoot data acquisition and reconstruction for cardiac x-ray computed tomography. Med Phys 2006;33:4236-48.
6. 6. Menke J, Unterberg-Buchwald C, Staab W, Sohns JM, Seif Amir Hosseini A, Schwarz A. Head-to-head comparison of prospectively triggered vs retrospectively gated coronary computed tomography angiography: meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy, image quality, and radiation dose. Am Heart J 2013;165:154-63.e3.
7. 7. Meyer M, Haubenreisser H, Schoepf UJ, Vliegenthart R, Leidecker C, Allmendinger T, et al. Closing in on the K edge: coronary CT angiography at 100, 80, and 70 kV-initial comparison of a second- versus a third-generation dual-source CT system. Radiology 2014;273:373-82.
8. 8. Alkadhi H, Stolzmann P, Scheffel H, Desbiolles L, Baumuller S, Plass A, et al. Radiation dose of cardiac dual-source CT: the effect of tailoring the protocol to patient-specific parameters. Eur J Radiol 2008;68:385-91.

9. 9. Rist C, Johnson TR, Muller-Starck J, Arnoldi E, Saam T, Becker A, et al. Noninvasive coronary angiography using dual-source computed tomography in patients with atrial fibrillation. Invest Radiol 2009;44:159-67.
10. 10. Neefjes LA, Dharampal AS, Rossi A, Nieman K, Weustink AC, Dijkshoorn ML, et al. Image quality and radiation exposure using different low-dose scan protocols in dual-source CT coronary angiography: randomized study. Radiology 2011;261:779-86.
11. 11. Seppelt D, Kolb C, Kuhn JP, Speiser U, Radosa CG, Hoberuck S, et al. Comparison of sequential and high-pitch-spiral coronary CT-angiography: image quality and radiation exposure. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 2019;35:1379-86.
12. 12. Smettei OA, Sayed S, A MAH, Alharbi F, Abazid RM. Ultra-fast, low dose high-pitch (FLASH) versus prospectively-gated coronary computed tomography angiography: Comparison of image quality and patient radiation exposure. J Saudi Heart Assoc 2018;30:165-71.
13. 13. Hausleiter J, Meyer T, Hermann F, Hadamitzky M, Krebs M, Gerber TC, et al. Estimated radiation dose associated with cardiac CT angiography. JAMA 2009;301:500-7.
14. 14. Pontone G, Muscogiuri G, Baggiano A, Andreini D, Guaricci AI, Guglielmo M, et al. Image quality, overall evaluability, and effective radiation dose of coronary computed tomography angiography with prospective electrocardiographic triggering plus intracycle motion correction algorithm in patients with a heart rate over 65 beats per minute. J Thorac Imaging 2018;33:225-31.
15. 15. De Cecco CN, Meinel FG, Chiaramida SA, Costello P, Bamberg F, Schoepf UJ. Coronary artery computed tomography scanning. Circulation 2014;129:1341-5.
16. 16. Lin CT, Chu LCH, Zimmerman SL, Fishman EK. High-pitch non-gated scans on the second and third generation dual-source CT scanners: comparison of coronary image quality. Clin Imaging 2020;59:45-9.
17. 17. Linsen PV, Coenen A, Lubbers MM, Dijkshoorn ML, Ouhlous M, Nieman K. Computed tomography angiography with a 192-slice dual-source computed tomography system: improvements in image quality and radiation dose. J Clin Imaging Sci 2016;6:44.
18. 18. Shapiro MD, Pena AJ, Nichols JH, Worrell S, Bamberg F, Dannemann N, et al. Efficacy of pre-scan beta-blockade and impact of heart rate on image quality in patients undergoing coronary multidetector computed tomography angiography. Eur J Radiol 2008;66:37-41.
19. 19. Ochs MM, Andre F, Korosoglou G, Fritz T, Seitz S, Bogomazov Y, et al. Strengths and limitations of coronary angiography with turbo high-pitch third-generation dual-source CT. Clin Radiol 2017;72:739-44.
20. 20. Jia CF, Zhong J, Meng XY, Sun XX, Yang ZQ, Zou YJ, et al. Image quality and diagnostic value of ultra low-voltage, ultra low-contrast coronary CT angiography. Eur Radiol 2019;29:3678-85.