ArticleThe international journal of cardiovascular imaging2015
High-definition computed tomography for coronary artery stents: image quality and radiation doses for low voltage (100 kVp) and standard voltage (120 kVp) ECG-triggered scanning.
Article in The international journal of cardiovascular imaging, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Low-tube-potential ultra-high-resolution coronary CTA with photon-counting detector CT for stent evaluation: a comparative feasibility study.Japanese journal of radiology · 2025Article
- Evaluation of image quality and radiation dose in low tube voltage coronary computed tomography angiography.ARYA atherosclerosis · 2019Article
- A comparison study of radiation effective dose in ECG-Gated Coronary CT Angiography and calcium scoring examinations performed with a dual-source CT scanner.Scientific reports · 2019Article
- Diagnostic accuracy of in-stent restenosis using model-based iterative reconstruction at coronary CT angiography: initial experience.The British journal of radiology · 2018Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The noninvasive assessment of coronary stents by coronary CT angiography (CCTA) is an attractive method. However, the radiation dose associated with CCTA remains a concern for patients. The purpose of this study is to compare the radiation doses and image qualities of CCTA performed using tube voltages of 100 or 120 kVp for the evaluation of coronary stents. After receiving institutional review board approval, 53 consecutive patients with previously implanted stents (101 stents) underwent 64-slice CCTA. Patients were divided into three different protocol groups, namely, prospective ECG triggering at 100 kVp, prospective ECG triggering at 120 kVp, or retrospective gating at 100 kVp. Two reviewers qualitatively scored the quality of the resulting images for coronary stents and determined levels of artificial lumen narrowing (ALN), stent lumen attenuation increase ratio (SAIR), image noise, and radiation dose parameters. No significant differences were found between the three protocol groups concerning qualitative image quality or SAIR. Coronary lumen attenuation and in-stent attenuation of 100 kVp prospective CCTA (P-CCTA) were higher than in the 120 kVp P-CCTA protocol (all Ps < 0.001). Mean ALN was significantly lower for 100 kVp P-CCTA than for 100 kVp retrospective CCTA (R-CCTA, P = 0.007). The mean effective radiation dose was significantly lower (P < 0.001) for 100 kVp P-CCTA (3.3 ± 0.4 mSv) than for the other two protocols (100 kVp R-CCTA 6.7 ± 1.0 mSv, 120 kVp P-CCTA 4.6 ± 1.2 mSv). We conclude that the use of 100 kVp P-CCTA can reduce radiation doses for patients while maintaining the imaging quality of 100 kVp R-CCTA and 120 kVp P-CCTA for the evaluation of coronary stents.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26022439What 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.