ArticleEuropean journal of radiology open2026
Patient-specific timing acquisition for coronary CT angiography: A retrospective patient validation study.
Article in European journal of radiology open, 2026. 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To retrospectively validate a patient-specific post-trigger delay technique for coronary CT angiography (CCTA) and compare it with the conventional fixed-delay approach using true peak arterial enhancement as the reference standard. Methods: Thirty-seven patients (mean age 63 ± 9 years; 35% male) who underwent dynamic CT perfusion imaging were retrospectively analyzed. Serial volumetric acquisitions were obtained during and after intravenous administration of 40-50 mL iodinated contrast. Time-attenuation curves from the descending aorta and major coronary arteries (LAD, LCx, RCA) were modeled using a gamma variate function to determine true time-to-peak enhancement (TTP), peak attenuation, and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR). Coronary enhancement was simulated using (1) a fixed 5-second post-trigger delay and (2) a patient-specific delay defined as half the injection duration plus a dispersion constant. True peak enhancement was used as the reference standard. Timing accuracy and enhancement differences were evaluated using paired statistical analyses. Results: The patient-specific delay predicted peak coronary enhancement with a mean deviation of -0.80 ± 0.85 s, maintaining enhancement and CNR within 10% of peak values. The fixed 5-second delay showed a larger deviation (-2.11 ± 0.82 s; p < 0.001) and reduced coronary enhancement (-37%) and CNR (-27%) relative to peak (p < 0.05). Improvements were consistent across all coronary arteries. Conclusion: Injection-duration-based patient-specific timing more accurately predicts peak coronary enhancement than a fixed-delay strategy and improves CCTA contrast enhancement and CNR without increasing radiation dose or workflow complexity.
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.