Image quality and radiation exposure with prospectively ECG-triggered axial scanning for coronary CT angiography: the multicenter, multivendor, randomized PROTECTION-III study.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to evaluate image quality and radiation dose using a prospectively electrocardiogram (ECG)-triggered axial scan protocol compared with standard retrospective ECG-gated helical scanning for coronary computed tomography angiography. BACKGROUND: Concerns have been raised regarding radiation exposure during coronary computed tomography angiography. Although the use of prospectively ECG-triggered axial scan protocols may effectively lower radiation dose compared with helical scanning, it is unknown whether image quality is maintained in a clinical setting. METHODS: In a prospective, multicenter, multivendor trial, 400 patients with low and stable heart rates were randomized to either an axial or a helical coronary computed tomography angiography scan protocol. The primary endpoint was to demonstrate noninferiority in image quality with the axial scan protocol, which was assessed on a 4-point scale (1 = nondiagnostic, 4 = excellent image quality). Secondary endpoints included radiation dose and the rate of downstream testing during 30-day follow-up. RESULTS: Image quality in patients scanned with the axial scan protocol (score 3.36 ± 0.59) was not inferior compared with helical scan protocols (3.37 ± 0.59) (p for noninferiority <0.004). Axial scanning was associated with a 69% reduction in radiation exposure (dose-length product [estimated effective dose] 252 ± 147 mGy · cm [3.5 ± 2.1 mSv] vs. 802 ± 419 mGy · cm [11.2 ± 5.9 mSv] for axial vs. helical scan protocols, p < 0.001). The rate of downstream testing did not differ (13.8% vs. 15.9% for axial vs. helical scan protocols, p = 0.555). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with stable and low heart rates, the prospectively ECG-triggered axial scan protocol maintained image quality but reduced radiation exposure by 69% compared with helical scanning. Axial computed tomography data acquisition should be strongly recommended in suitable patients to avoid unnecessarily high radiation exposure.

Image quality and radiation exposure with a low tube voltage protocol for coronary CT angiography results of the PROTECTION II Trial.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to evaluate image quality and radiation dose using a 100 kVp tube voltage scan protocol compared with standard 120 kVp for coronary computed tomography angiography (CTA). BACKGROUND: Concerns have been raised about radiation exposure during coronary CTA. The use of a 100 kVp tube voltage scan protocol effectively lowers coronary CTA radiation dose compared with standard 120 kVp, but it is unknown whether image quality is maintained. METHODS: We enrolled 400 nonobese patients who underwent coronary CTA: 202 patients were randomly assigned to a 100 kVp protocol and 198 patients to a 120 kVp protocol. The primary end point was to demonstrate noninferiority in image quality with the 100 kVp protocol, which was assessed by a 4-point grading score (1 = nondiagnostic, 4 = excellent image quality). For the noninferiority analysis, a margin of -0.2 image quality score points for the difference between both scan protocols was pre-defined. Secondary end points included radiation dose and need for additional diagnostic tests during follow-up. RESULTS: The mean image quality scores in patients scanned with 100 kVp and 120 kVp were 3.30 ± 0.67 and 3.28 ± 0.68, respectively (p = 0.742); image quality of the 100 kVp protocol was not inferior, as demonstrated by the 97.5% confidence interval of the difference, which did not cross the pre-defined noninferiority margin of -0.2. The 100 kVp protocol was associated with a 31% relative reduction in radiation exposure (dose-length product: 868 ± 317 mGy × cm with 120 kVp vs. 599 ± 255 mGy × cm with 100 kVp; p < 0.0001). At 30-day follow-up, the need for additional diagnostic studies did not differ (13.4% vs. 19.2% for 100 kVp vs. 120 kVp, respectively; p = 0.114). CONCLUSIONS: A coronary CTA protocol using 100 kVp tube voltage maintained image quality, but reduced radiation exposure by 31% as compared with the standard 120 kVp protocol. Thus, 100 kVp scan protocols should be considered for nonobese patients to keep radiation exposure as low as reasonably achievable. (Prospective Randomized Trial on Radiation Dose Estimates of Cardiac CT Angiography in Patients Scanned With a 100 kVp Protocol [PROTECTION II]; NCT00611780).

Improved noninvasive assessment of coronary artery bypass grafts with 64-slice computed tomographic angiography in an unselected patient population.

OBJECTIVES: In this prospective evaluation we investigated the accuracy of 64-slice computed tomography angiography (CTA) in an unselected but symptomatic patient population for detection of stenoses in bypass grafts when compared with invasive angiography. BACKGROUND: The assessment of significant stenosis in bypass grafts is important for patients with recurrent angina symptoms after bypass surgery. METHODS: High-resolution 64-slice computed tomography (0.6 mm collimation, 330 ms gantry rotation time) and invasive angiography were performed in 138 consecutive patients with a total of 418 bypass grafts. Relevant stenosis was defined as diameter reduction > or =50%. During CTA, arrhythmias were present in 42 (30%) patients who were not excluded from the analysis. RESULTS: The assessment of stenosis or occlusion of bypass grafts resulted in a sensitivity of 97%, specificity of 97%, and positive and negative predictive values of 93% and of 99%, respectively. The diagnostic accuracy for the detection of graft occlusion or stenosis did not differ between arterial and venous grafts. The evaluability of bypass grafts was significantly lower in patients with arrhythmias or with heart rates > or =65 beats/min during scanning. However, in the assessment of evaluable bypass grafts, no significant differences were detected in the diagnostic accuracy in these subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: This large prospective study demonstrates that 64-slice CTA is a reliable method for the assessment of bypass graft patency and stenoses even in an unselected "real-world" patient population.