Coronary Artery Visualization by Using the 64-row MDCT in Pediatric Patients
Purpose: We retrospectively evaluated the visualization of pediatric coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) images by using the 64-detector row CT scanner between the electrocardiogram-gated helical scan and non-electrocardiogram-gated helical scan. Methods: From January 2015 to March 2019,...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Japanese Journal of Radiological Technology 2022, Vol.78(8), pp.856-863 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | jpn |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | Purpose: We retrospectively evaluated the visualization of pediatric coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) images by using the 64-detector row CT scanner between the electrocardiogram-gated helical scan and non-electrocardiogram-gated helical scan. Methods: From January 2015 to March 2019, 100 children who underwent CT angiography examination were retrospectively enrolled. Group A consisted of 50 patients with electrocardiogram-gated helical scan. Group B consisted of 50 patients with non-electrocardiogram-gated helical scan. All patients were scanned using a 64-detector row CT scanner (LightSpeed VCT), and helical scans were acquired. The CT scanning parameters were 0.4-s rotation, 0.625-mm slice thickness, 0.24 (group A) helical pitch (beam pitch), 1.375 (group B) helical pitch (beam pitch), 80 kVp, and 50–300 mA (noise index 40). A retrospective method was used for electrocardiogram gated. To compare the radiation dose, CT volume dose index (CTDIvol) and dose length product (DLP) displayed on the console were recorded. The visualization scores of the coronary artery images were compared between each group. Results: In group A, CTDIvol and DLP values were 6.74 (1.05–11.97) mGy and 79.87 (15.90–146.65) mGy·cm, respectively. In group B, CTDIvol and DLP values were 0.51 (0.39–0.95) mGy and 8.15 (6.30–17.50) mGy·cm, respectively. There were significant differences in CTDIvol and DLP values between both groups (p |
---|---|
ISSN: | 0369-4305 1881-4883 |
DOI: | 10.6009/jjrt.2022-1194 |