ArticleThe international journal of cardiovascular imaging2019
Comparison of sequential and high-pitch-spiral coronary CT-angiography: image quality and radiation exposure.
Article in The international journal of cardiovascular imaging, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnostic performance of coronary computed tomography (CT) angiography without electrocardiographic (ECG)-gating: comparison with invasive coronary angiography.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2026Article
- Stenosis quantification in high-pitch photon-counting coronary CT angiography: in vitro and in vivo impact of reconstruction kernel types and sharpness levels.European radiology experimental · 2025Article
- NoiseNet, a fully automatic noise assessment tool that can identify non-diagnostic CCTA examinations.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2024Article
- Atherosclerosis evaluation and cardiovascular risk estimation using coronary computed tomography angiography.European heart journal · 2024Review
- Optimization of Kernel Type and Sharpness Level Improves Objective and Subjective Image Quality for High-Pitch Photon Counting Coronary CT Angiography.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Influence of heart rate and heart rate variability on the feasibility of ultra-fast, high-pitch coronary photon-counting computed tomography angiography.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2023Article
- Is There Any Improvement in Image Quality in Obese Patients When Using a New X-ray Tube and Deep Learning Image Reconstruction in Coronary Computed Tomography Angiography?Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA): effect of bolus-tracking ROI positioning on image quality.European radiology · 2021Article
- Cardiovascular imaging 2019 in the International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2020Article
- In vivo radiation dosimetry and image quality of turbo-flash and retrospective dual-source CT coronary angiography.La Radiologia medica · 2020Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
New protocols for coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) could lower the radiation dose for patients but influence the image quality. To compare image quality and radiation exposure in step-and-shoot CCTA and high-pitch spiral CCTA. Fifty-nine pairs of patients matched for weight, height, sex and heart rate were included in this study (74 m, 44 f, average age 60 years, age range 29-94 years). Step-and-shoot CCTA and high-pitch spiral CCTA was performed on a third generation dual-source CT in equally sized patient groups. The signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) in the ascending aorta and the coronary arteries were determined for each dataset. Image quality was rated using a five-point scale. We used the t-test for paired samples to compare SNR and effective dose, and the Wilcoxon test to compare image quality scores. Mean effective dose for the step-and-shoot protocol (4.15 ± 3.07 mSv) was significantly higher in comparison to the high-pitch spiral protocol (1.2 ± 0.69 mSv; p < 0.0001). Mean SNR was higher with the step-and-shoot protocol compared to the high-pitch spiral protocol in the aorta, in the left main and peripheral coronary arteries (p < 0.01), in the proximal right coronary artery (p = 0.027). Image quality scores were significantly better for the step-and-shoot protocol (p = 0.0003). Step-and-shoot CCTA has significantly better SNR and overall image quality compared to high-pitch spiral CCTA, but with a mean effective dose more than thrice as high.
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.