ArticleInsights into imaging2012
Ultrafast imaging of the entire chest without ECG synchronisation or beta-blockade: to what extent can we analyse the coronary arteries?
Article in Insights into imaging, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Imaging in translational cancer research.Cancer biology & medicine · 2022Review
- Image Quality of Coronary Arteries on Non-electrocardiography-gated High-Pitch Dual-Source Computed Tomography in Children with Congenital Heart Disease.Pediatric cardiology · 2017Article
- Coronary calcium screening with dual-source CT: reliability of ungated, high-pitch chest CT in comparison with dedicated calcium-scoring CT.European radiology · 2016Article
- Coronary artery visibility in free-breathing young children on non-gated chest CT: impact of temporal resolution.Pediatric radiology · 2015Article
- Imaging for suspected colorectal cancer in frail and elderly patients.Techniques in coloproctology · 2014Article
- High pitch third generation dual-source CT: Coronary and cardiac visualization on routine chest CT.Journal of cardiovascular computed tomographyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate the accessibility of coronary arteries from chest CT examinations acquired without ECG gating or beta-blockade. MATERIALS AND
methodsTwo hundred forty-two patients (median heart rate: 81.7 bpm) underwent a non-ECG-gated CT examination with high pitch and high temporal resolution. Image analysis was obtained by consensus between two readers.
resultsThe percentage of accessible segments was 88% at the proximal level (i.e. 4 segments), 75% at the proximal and mid-segment level (i.e. 7 segments), and 61% and 48% when considering 10 and 15 segments, respectively. The mean (± SD) number of accessible segments per patient was 3.5 ± 0.78 and 5.2 ± 1.50 when considering four and seven segments per patient, respectively. The percentage of patients with four segments accessible was 67% (126/242), decreasing to 23% (55/242) with seven segments accessible and 3% (7/242) with ten segments accessible, while the entire coronary artery tree was not accessible for any of the patients. No significant difference was found in the patients' mean hearts with four, seven, or ten accessible segments (P = 0.4897).
conclusionDiagnostic image quality was attainable at the level of proximal segments in 67% of patients, while proximal and mid-coronary segments were accessible in 23% of patients. Main Messages • High-pitch and high-temporal resolution scanning modes make accessible proximal coronary arteries on non ECG-gated chest CT angiograms • It is not necessary to administer beta-blockers to achieve good results. • Tobacco-related cardiovascular disorders could benefit from this scanning mode.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.