4.3 Article

Coronary artery visibility in free-breathing young children with congenital heart disease on cardiac 64-slice CT: dual-source ECG-triggered sequential scan vs. single-source non-ECG-synchronized spiral scan

Journal

PEDIATRIC RADIOLOGY
Volume 40, Issue 10, Pages 1670-1680

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00247-010-1693-8

Keywords

Coronary artery; Congenital heart disease; Dual-source CT; ECG-triggered sequential CT; Child

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The potential impact of dual-source ECG-triggered sequential CT scan on coronary artery visibility has not been evaluated in free-breathing young children. To compare coronary artery visibility in free-breathing young children with congenital heart disease on cardiac 64-slice CT between dual-source ECG-triggered sequential (DSET) scan and single-source non-ECG-synchronized spiral (SSNE) scan. In 93 young children, 108 cardiac 64-slice CT examinations were performed during free-breathing. Visibility of coronary arteries and side branches was compared between SSNE and DSET scans. Heart rates and trigger delays for DSET scan were recorded. Effective dose of each scan technique was calculated. Visual grades were significantly higher (P < 0.001 or =0.011) on DSET scan than on SSNE scan except for the distal left anterior descending artery. Coronary arteries were traceable in 79.3% on DSET scan and 54.3% on SSNE scan in the overlapped scan range (P < 0.0001), and 97.1% and 71.9% for the origins and proximal segments (P < 0.0001). Visibility of side branches was improved on DSET scan by a factor of 2.0. Heart rates and trigger delays for DSET scan were 131 +/- 24 beats per min and 199 +/- 44 ms, respectively. Effective doses of DSET and SSNE scans were 0.36 +/- 0.12 mSv and 0.99 +/- 0.23 mSv, respectively. DSET scan improves visibility of coronary arteries on cardiac 64-slice CT in free-breathing young children with congenital heart disease, compared with SSNE scan.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available