4.5 Article

Dual-source CT for visualization of the coronary arteries in heart transplant patients with high heart rates

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY
Volume 191, Issue 2, Pages 448-454

Publisher

AMER ROENTGEN RAY SOC
DOI: 10.2214/AJR.07.3512

Keywords

coronary vessels; dual-source CT; heart transplantation; image quality; reconstruction interval

Ask authors/readers for more resources

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the quality of dual-source CT images of the coronary arteries in heart transplant recipients with high heart rates. SUBJECTS AND METHODS. Contrast-enhanced dual-source CT coronary angiography was performed on 23 heart transplant recipients (20 men, three women; mean age, 61.1 +/- 12.8 years). Data sets were reconstructed in 5% steps from 30% to 80% of the R-R interval. Two blinded independent readers using a 5-point scale (0, not evaluative; 4, excellent quality) assessed the quality of images of coronary segments. RESULTS. The mean heart rate during scanning was 89.2 +/- 10.4 beats/min. Interobserver agreement on the quality of images of the whole coronary tree was a kappa value of 0.78 and for selection of the optimal reconstruction interval was a kappa value of 0.82. The optimal reconstruction interval was systole in 17 (74%) of the 23 of heart transplant recipients. At the best reconstruction interval, diagnostic image quality (score >= 2) was obtained in 92.1% (303 of 329) of the coronary artery segments. The mean image quality score for the whole coronary tree was 3.1 +/- 1.01. No significant correlation between mean heart rate (rho = 0.31) or heart rate variability (rho = 0.23) and overall image quality score was observed (p = not significant). CONCLUSION. Dual-source CT acquisition yields coronary angiograms of diagnostic quality in heart transplant recipients. Mean heart rate and heart rate variability during scanning do not have a negative effect on the overall quality of images of the coronary arteries.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available