Evidence Hub

The Importance of Temporal Resolution for Ultra-High-Resolution Coronary Angiography: Evidence From Photon-Counting Detector CT.

Mergen V, Sartoretti T, Cundari G, Serifovic M, Higashigaito K, Allmendinger T, Schmidt B, Flohr T et al.

Investigative radiology, 2023

30 participants

Abstract

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to assess the effect of temporal resolution on subjective and objective image quality of coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) in the ultra-high-resolution (UHR) mode with dual-source photon-counting detector (PCD) CT.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective, institutional review board-approved study evaluated 30 patients (9 women; mean age, 80 ± 10 years) undergoing UHR CCTA with a clinical dual-source PCD-CT scanner. Images were acquired with a tube voltage of 120 kV and using a collimation of 120 × 0.2 mm. Gantry rotation time was 0.25 seconds. Each scan was reconstructed using both single-source and dual-source data resulting in an image temporal resolution of 125 milliseconds and 66 milliseconds, respectively. The average heart rate and the heart rate variability were recorded. Images were reconstructed with a slice thickness of 0.2 mm, quantum iterative reconstruction strength level 4, and using the Bv64 and Bv72 kernel for patients without and with coronary stents, respectively. For subjective image quality, 2 experienced readers rated motion artifacts and vessel delineation, or in-stent lumen visualization using 5-point discrete visual scales. For objective image quality, signal-to-noise ratio, contrast-to-noise ratio, stent blooming artifacts, and vessel and stent sharpness were quantified.

RESULTS: Fifteen patients had coronary stents, and 15 patients had no coronary stents. The mean heart rate and heart rate…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 30 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free