ArticleSingapore medical journal2024
Image quality, contrast enhancement and radiation dose of electrocardiograph- versus non-electrocardiograph-triggered computed tomography angiography of the aorta.
Article in Singapore medical journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Can an Unenhanced Reduced-Dose ECG-Gated CT of the Aorta Replace an ECG-Gated CT-Angiography for Diameter Follow-Up of the Ascending Aorta?Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2026Article
- Comparing the Diagnostic Performance of ECG Gated versus Non-Gated CT Angiography in Ascending Aortic Dissection: A GRRAS Study.Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) · 2022Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionComputed tomography angiography of the aorta (CTAA) is the modality of choice for investigating aortic disease. Our aim was to evaluate the image quality, contrast enhancement and radiation dose of electrocardiograph (ECG)-triggered and non-ECG-triggered CTAA on a 256-slice single-source CT scanner. This allows the requesting clinician and the radiologist to balance radiation risk and image quality.
methodsWe retrospectively assessed the data of 126 patients who had undergone CTAA on a single-source CT scanner using ECG-triggered (group 1, n = 77) or non-ECG-triggered (group 2, n = 49) protocols. Radiation doses were compared. Qualitative (4-point scale) and quantitative image quality assessments were performed.
resultsThe mean volume CT dose index, dose length product and effective dose in group 1 were 12.4 ± 1.9 mGy, 765.8 ± 112.4 mGy cm and 13.0 ± 1.9 mSv, respectively. These were significantly higher compared to group 2 values (9.1 ± 2.6 mGy, 624.1 ± 174.8 mGy cm and 10.6 ± 3.0 mSv, respectively) ( P < 0.001). Qualitative assessment showed the image quality at the aortic root-proximal ascending aorta was significantly higher in group 1 (median 3) than in group 2 (median 2, P < 0.001). Quantitative assessment showed significantly better mean arterial attenuation, signal-to-noise ratio and contrast-to-noise ratio in ECG-triggered CTAA compared to non-ECG-triggered CTAA.
conclusionECG-triggered CTAA in a single-source scanner has superior image quality and vessel attenuation of aortic root/ascending aorta, but a higher radiation dose of approximately 23%. Its use should be considered specifically when assessing aortic root/ascending aorta pathology.
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.