These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Reduced iodine load with CT coronary angiography using dual-energy imaging: a prospective randomized trial compared with standard coronary CT angiography.
    Author: Raju R, Thompson AG, Lee K, Precious B, Yang TH, Berger A, Taylor C, Heilbron B, Nguyen G, Earls J, Min J, Carrascosa P, Murphy D, Hague C, Leipsic JA.
    Journal: J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr; 2014; 8(4):282-8. PubMed ID: 25151920.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: There is concern regarding the administration of iodinated contrast to patients with impaired renal function because of the increased risk of contrast-induced nephropathy. OBJECTIVE: Evaluate image quality and feasibility of a protocol with a reduced volume of iodinated contrast and utilization of dual-energy coronary CT angiography (DECT) vs a standard iodinated contrast volume coronary CT angiography protocol (SCCTA). METHODS: A total of 102 consecutive patients were randomized to SCCTA (n = 53) or DECT with rapid kVp switching (n = 49). Eighty milliliters and 35 mL of iodinated contrast were administered in the SCCTA and DECT cohorts, respectively. Two readers measured signal and noise in the coronary arteries; signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) were calculated. A 5-point signal/noise Likert scale was used to evaluate image quality; scores of <3 were nondiagnostic. Agreement was assessed through kappa analyses. RESULTS: Demographics and radiation dose were not significantly different; there was no difference in CNR between both cohorts (P = .95). A significant difference in SNR between the groups (P = .02) lost significance (P = .13) when adjusted for body mass index. The median Likert score was inferior for DECT for reader 1 (3.6 ± 0.6 vs 4.3 ± 0.6; P < .001) but not reader 2 (4.1 ± 0.6 vs 4.3 ± 0.5; P = .06). Agreement in diagnostic interpretability in the DECT and SCCTA groups was 91% (95% confidence interval, 86%-100%) and 96% (95% confidence interval, 90%-100%), respectively. CONCLUSION: DECT resulted in inferior image quality scores but demonstrated comparable SNR, CNR, and rate of diagnostic interpretability without a radiation dose penalty while allowing for >50% reduction in contrast volume compared with SCCTA.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]