ArticleJournal of the Saudi Heart Association2018
Ultra-fast, low dose high-pitch (FLASH) versus prospectively-gated coronary computed tomography angiography: Comparison of image quality and patient radiation exposure.
Article in Journal of the Saudi Heart Association, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- Value of the Non-enhanced Cardiac Computed Tomography Scan Analysis in Determination of the Appropriate Coronary CT Angiography Scan Protocol.Journal of the Saudi Heart Association · 2026Article
- Article
- Trading off Iodine and Radiation Dose in Coronary Computed Tomography.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2025Review
- Comparing Different Contrast Injection Methods for Multislice Spiral CT Imaging in Triple-Rule-Out Examinations: A Study on Acute Chest Pain Patients.International journal of general medicine · 2025Article
- Basic Concepts and Insights into Aortopulmonary Collateral Arteries in Congenital Heart Diseases.The Indian journal of radiology & imaging · 2023Review
- High-pitched tin-filtered CT pulmonary angiography in radiation dose reduction for pulmonary embolism investigations in young females.Emergency radiology · 2023Article
- Coronary computed tomography angiography in children.Pediatric radiology · 2022Review
- MDCT Imaging of Non-Traumatic Thoracic Aortic Emergencies and Its Impact on Diagnosis and Management-A Reappraisal.Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) · 2022Review
- Radiation Dose and Image Quality of a High-Pitch Prospective Spiral First Approach in Coronary Computed Tomography Angiography (CCTA).Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2021Article
- The sub-millisievert era in CTCA: the technical basis of the new radiation dose approach.La Radiologia medica · 2020Review
- Visualization of proximal coronary arteries on high-pitch electrocardiogram-triggered computed tomography in pediatric congenital heart disease: effects of heart rate and body surface area.Pediatric radiology · 2020Article
- The optimal monoenergetic spectral image level of coronary computed tomography (CT) angiography on a dual-layer spectral detector CT with half-dose contrast media.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2020Article
- Comparison of sequential and high-pitch-spiral coronary CT-angiography: image quality and radiation exposure.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2019Article
- Non-Gated Triple Flash Coronary Computed Tomographic Angiography in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation.Acta Cardiologica Sinica · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCoronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) is increasingly being used for the evaluation of coronary artery disease; however, radiation exposure remains a major limitation of its use.
objectiveTo compare image quality and radiation exposure in two groups of patients undergoing CCTA using a 256-slice dual-source helical computed tomography scanner with high-pitch (FLASH) or prospective [step-and-shoot (SAS)] gating protocols.
methodsA prospective, single-center study was performed in our cardiac center. In total, 162 patients underwent CCTA with either FLASH or SAS scanning protocols. Subjective image quality was graded on the basis of a four-point grading system (1, non-diagnostic; 2, adequate; 3, good; 4, excellent). Objective image quality was assessed using image signal, noise, and signal-to-noise ratio (SNR). The effective radiation dose was also estimated.
resultsThe clinical and demographic characteristics of the patients in both groups were similar. The median age of the patients in both groups was 48.43 years, and males accounted for 63% and 68.7% of the FLASH and SAS groups, respectively. We found that the subjective image quality obtained with the FLASH protocol was superior to that obtained with the SAS protocol (3.35 ± 0.6 mSv vs. 2.82 ± 0.61 mSv;
conclusionThe use of 256-slice CCTA performed with the FLASH protocol has a better objective and subjective image quality as well as lower radiation exposure when compared with the use of prospective electrocardiography gating.
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.