Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Objective: To assess the image quality and effective radiation dose of prospectively electrocardiogram (ECG)-gated high-pitch spiral acquisition mode (flash mode) of dual-source CT (DSCT) coronary angiography (CTCA) in patients with high heart rates (HRs) as compared with retrospectively ECG-gated spiral acquisition mode.
Materials And Methods: Two hundred and sixty-eight consecutive patients (132 female, mean age: 55 ± 11 years) with mean HR > 65 beats per minute (bpm) were prospectively included in this study. The patients were divided into two groups. Collection was performed in group A CTCA using flash mode setting at 20-30% of the R-R interval, and retrospectively ECG-gated spiral acquisition mode in group B. The image noise, contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), image quality scores, effective radiation dose and influencing factors on image quality between the two groups were assessed.
Results: There were no significant differences in image quality scores and proportions of non-diagnostic coronary artery segments between two groups (image quality scores: 1.064 ± 0.306 [group A] vs. 1.084 ± 0.327 [group B], p = 0.063; proportion of non-diagnostic coronary artery segments: segment-based analysis 1.52% (group A) vs. 1.74% (group B), p = 0.345; patient-based analysis 7.5% (group A) vs. 6.7% (group B), p = 0.812). The estimated radiation dose was 1.0 ± 0.16 mSv in group A and 7.1 ± 1.05 mSv in group B (p = 0.001).
Conclusion: In conclusion, in patients with HRs > 65 bpm without cardiac arrhythmia, the prospectively high-pitch spiral-acquisition mode with image-acquired timing set at 20-30% of the R-R interval provides a similar image quality and low rate of non-diagnostic coronary segments to the retrospectively ECG-gated low-pitch spiral acquisition mode, with significant reduction of radiation exposure.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3484288 | PMC |
http://dx.doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2012.13.6.684 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!