ArticleEuropean journal of radiology open2026
Image quality assessment of ECG-less coronary CT angiography: A comparative study with conventional ECG-gated CCTA.
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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Electrocardiogram (ECG)-gated coronary CT angiography (CCTA) is a standard method for evaluating coronary artery disease. However, it has limitations, including patient discomfort, technical setup, and reduced accuracy in cases of arrhythmia or obesity. New CT technologies enable high-quality image acquisition without the need for ECG leads. Objective: This study compares image quality between ECG-less and ECG-gated CCTA. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed two matched groups of patients (n = 43 each) who underwent either ECG-less or ECG-gated CCTA. ECG-less datasets were retrospectively categorized into subphases corresponding to one-quarter, one-half, three-quarters, and full cardiac cycle reconstructions. Image quality was evaluated by radiologists using both subjective and objective measures for both groups and for all reconstructed datasets. Subjective assessment was performed using a 6-point Likert scale to rate motion artifacts in the left anterior descending artery (LAD), left circumflex artery (LCX), and right coronary artery (RCA). Objective image quality was quantified by calculating the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) in the left main coronary artery (LMCA), LAD, LCX, RCA, and ascending aorta. Results: Image quality was comparable between the two groups in most subphases. However, in the ¼-cycle subphase in the ECG-less group, Likert scores were significantly lower for the LCX (P = 0.027), and RCA (P = 0.041) compared to the control group. Regarding SNR and CNR, there were no significant differences across all vascular territories in either full-phase or subphase data (P > 0.05). Conclusion: Both subjective and objective image quality metrics were comparable between ECG-less and conventional ECG-gated CCTA, supporting the reliability of ECG-less acquisitions.
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.