Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25276615›Full record

ArticleCardiovascular diagnosis and therapy2014

Superior CT coronary angiography image quality at lower radiation exposure with second generation 320-detector row CT in patients with elevated heart rate: a comparison with first generation 320-detector row CT.

Dennis T L Wong, Siang Y Soh, Brian S H Ko, James D Cameron, Marcus Crossett, Arthur Nasis, John Troupis, Ian T Meredith, Sujith K Seneviratne

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cardiovascular diagnosis and therapy, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Dennis T L Wong1 Monash Heart, Monash Cardiovascular Research Centre & Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia ; 2 Department of Diagnostic Imaging, MMC, Southern Health, Melbourne, Australia.
Siang Y Soh1 Monash Heart, Monash Cardiovascular Research Centre & Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia ; 2 Department of Diagnostic Imaging, MMC, Southern Health, Melbourne, Australia.
Brian S H Ko1 Monash Heart, Monash Cardiovascular Research Centre & Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia ; 2 Department of Diagnostic Imaging, MMC, Southern Health, Melbourne, Australia.
James D Cameron1 Monash Heart, Monash Cardiovascular Research Centre & Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia ; 2 Department of Diagnostic Imaging, MMC, Southern Health, Melbourne, Australia.
Marcus Crossett1 Monash Heart, Monash Cardiovascular Research Centre & Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia ; 2 Department of Diagnostic Imaging, MMC, Southern Health, Melbourne, Australia.
Arthur Nasis1 Monash Heart, Monash Cardiovascular Research Centre & Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia ; 2 Department of Diagnostic Imaging, MMC, Southern Health, Melbourne, Australia.
John Troupis1 Monash Heart, Monash Cardiovascular Research Centre & Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia ; 2 Department of Diagnostic Imaging, MMC, Southern Health, Melbourne, Australia.
Ian T Meredith1 Monash Heart, Monash Cardiovascular Research Centre & Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia ; 2 Department of Diagnostic Imaging, MMC, Southern Health, Melbourne, Australia.
Sujith K Seneviratne1 Monash Heart, Monash Cardiovascular Research Centre & Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia ; 2 Department of Diagnostic Imaging, MMC, Southern Health, Melbourne, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis study aims to compare the image quality of second generation versus first generation 320-computed tomography coronary angiography (CTCA) in patients with heart rate ≥65 bpm as it has not been specifically reported.

methodsConsecutive patients who underwent CTCA using second-generation-320-detector-row-CT were prospectively enrolled. A total of 50 patients with elevated (≥65 bpm) heart rate and 50 patients with controlled (<65 bpm) heart rate were included. Age and gender matched patients who were scanned with the first-generation-320-detector-row-CT were retrospectively identified. Image quality in each coronary artery segment was assessed by two blinded CT angiographers using the five-point Likert scale.

resultsIn the elevated heart rate cohorts, while there was no significant difference in heart rate during scan-acquisition (66 vs. 69 bpm, P=0.308), or body mass index (28.5 vs. 29.6, P=0.464), the second generation scanner was associated with better image quality (3.94±0.6 vs. 3.45±0.8, P=0.001), and with lower radiation (2.8 vs. 4.3 mSv, P=0.009). There was no difference in scan image quality for the controlled heart rate cohorts.

conclusionsThe second generation CT scanner provides better image quality at lower radiation dose in patients with elevated heart rate (≥65 bpm) compared to first generation CT scanner.

Indexed as

320-detector rowcomputed tomography (CT)Image qualitylikert scaleradiation dose

Identifiers

PMID25276615
PMCPMC4147088

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.