ArticleThe British journal of radiology2014
Feasibility of a radiation dose conserving CT protocol for myocardial function assessment.
Article in The British journal of radiology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Noninvasive evaluation of global and regional left ventricular function using computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging: a meta-analysis.European radiology · 2017Pooled it
- Analysis of ventricular function by CT.Journal of cardiovascular computed tomographyReview
- Comparison of Chest Pain Protocols for Electrocardiography-Gated Dual-Source Cardiothoracic CT in Children and Adults: The Effect of Tube Current Saturation on Radiation Dose Reduction.Korean journal of radiologyArticle
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveAssessment of myocardial function can be performed at higher noise levels than necessary for coronary arterial evaluation. We evaluated image quality and radiation exposure of a dose-conserving function-only acquisition vs retrospectively electrocardiogram(ECG)-gated coronary CTA with automatic tube current modulation.
methodsOf 26 patients who underwent clinically indicated coronary CTA for coronary and function evaluation, 13 (Group I) underwent prospectively ECG-triggered coronary CTA, followed by low-dose retrospectively ECG-gated scan for function (128-slice dual-source, 80 kVp; reference tube current, 100 mA; 8-mm-thick multiplanar reformatted reconstructions) performed either immediately (n = 6) or after 5- to 10-min delay for infarct assessment (n = 7). 13 corresponding controls (Group II) underwent retrospectively ECG-gated protocols (automatic tube potential selection with CARE kV/CARE Dose 4D; Siemens Healthcare, Forchheim, Germany) with aggressive dose modulation. Image quality assessment was performed on the six Group I subjects who underwent early post-contrast dedicated function scan and corresponding controls. Radiation exposure was based on dose-length product.
resultsContrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) was preserved throughout the cardiac cycle in Group I and varied according to dose modulation in Group II. Visual image quality indices were similar during end systole but were better in Group II at end diastole. Although the total radiation exposure was equivalent in Group I and Group II (284 vs 280 mGy cm), the median radiation exposure associated with only the dedicated function scan was 138 mGy cm (interquartile range, 116-203 mGy cm).
conclusionA low-dose retrospective ECG-gated protocol permits assessment of myocardial function at a median radiation exposure of 138 mGy cm and offers more consistent multiphase CNR vs traditional ECG-modulation protocols. This is useful for pure functional evaluation or as an adjunct to single-phase scan modes. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Radiation exposure can be limited with a tailored myocardial function CT protocol while maintaining preserved images.
Indexed as
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.