ArticleEuropean journal of radiology open2017
Image quality and contrast agent exposure in cardiac computed tomography angiography prior to transcatheter aortic valve implantation procedures using different acquisition protocols.
Article in European journal of radiology open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundECG-gated cardiac computed tomography angiography (CCTA) has found widespread use for prosthesis sizing before transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). However, still little data exists on the optimal scan-strategy in such patients. We hypothesized that prospectively triggered CCTA can enable the visualization of aortic valve structures and peripheral arteries with lower radiation and contrast agent exposure in patients considered for TAVI compared to retrospectively gated protocols.
methodsAll studies were performed using a 256 multi-detector single source CT (iCT Philips, Best, Netherlands). With the prospective protocol the whole volume from the heart to the iliofemoral arteries scanned using prospective triggering. With the retrospective protocol a first retrospectively gated scan was performed for the heart and the iliofemoral part was subsequently scanned using a second non-triggered scan. Image quality was assessed semi-quantitatively and signal-to-noise- (SNR) and contrast-to-noise-ratios (CNR) were obtained for all scans.
resultsProspective CCTA was performed in 74 and in 34 patients, respectively using non-tailored and BMI adapted scans, whereas retrospective CCTA was performed in 57 patients. Prospective scans required lower contrast agent administration compared to retrospective scans (71 ± 8 mL versus 91 ± 15 mL, p < 0.01) and resulted in lower radiation exposure (26 ± 7mSv for retrospective versus 15 ± 3mSv for non-tailored prospective versus 8 ± 4mSv for BMI-adapted prospective scans, p < 0.01). Visual image quality was better for the evaluation of aortic valve structures and similar for the assessment of iliofemoral anatomy with prospective versus retrospective scans. In addition, contrast density, SNR and CNR were higher in the ascending aorta with prospective versus retrospective CCTA (434 ± 98HU versus 349 ± 112HU; 35 ± 14 versus 24 ± 9 and 31 ± 11 versus 16 ± 7, p < 0.001 for all). Subsection analysis by heart rate groups demonstrated that both image quality and CNR were significantly higher in patients with prospective versus retrospective CCTA, irrespective of the heart rate during image acquisition.
conclusionProspectively triggered CCTA allows for improved visualization of aortic valve structures and peripheral arteries in patients scheduled for TAVI with simultaneously reduced contrast agent dose and radiation exposure. Therefore, this acquisition mode seems to be the preferred for the evaluation of patients considered for TAVI.
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.