Chang HJ, George RT, Schuleri KH, Evers K, Kitagawa K, Lima JAC, Lardo AC. Prospective electrocardiogram-gated delayed enhanced multidetector computed tomography accurately quantifies infarct size and reduces radiation exposure.
JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 2009;
2:412-20. [PMID:
19580722 DOI:
10.1016/j.jcmg.2008.12.019]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 25] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/23/2008] [Revised: 12/11/2008] [Accepted: 12/24/2008] [Indexed: 10/20/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES
This study sought to determine whether low-dose, prospective electrocardiogram (ECG)-gated delayed contrast-enhanced multidetector computed tomography (DCE-MDCT) can accurately delineate the extent of myocardial infarction (MI) compared with retrospective ECG-gated DCE-MDCT.
BACKGROUND
For defining the location and extent of MI, DCE-MDCT compares well with delayed enhanced cardiac magnetic resonance. However, the addition of a delayed scan requires additional radiation exposure to patients. MDCT protocols using prospective ECG gating can substantially reduce effective radiation dose exposure, but these protocols have not yet been applied to infarct imaging.
METHODS
Ten porcine models of acute MI were imaged 10 days after MI using prospective and retrospective ECG-gated DCE-MDCT (64-slice) 10 min after a 90-ml contrast bolus. The MDCT images were analyzed using a semiautomated computed tomography density (CTD) threshold technique. Infarct size, signal-to-noise (SNR) ratios, contrast-to-noise (CNR) ratios, and image quality metrics were compared between the 2 ECG-gating techniques.
RESULTS
Infarct volume measurements obtained by both methods were strongly correlated (R = 0.93, p < 0.001) and in good agreement (mean difference: -0.46 ml +/- 4.00%). Compared with retrospective ECG gating, estimated radiation dosages were markedly reduced with prospective ECG gating (930.1 +/- 62.2 mGy x cm vs. 42.4 +/- 2.3 mGy x cm, p < 0.001). The SNR and CNR of infarcted myocardium were somewhat lower for prospective gated images (22.0 +/- 11.0 vs. 16.3 +/- 7.8 and 8.8 +/- 5.3 vs. 7.0 +/- 3.9, respectively; p < 0.001). However, all examinations using prospective gating protocol achieved sufficient diagnostic image quality for the assessment of MI.
CONCLUSIONS
Prospective ECG-gated DCE-MDCT accurately assesses infarct size compared with retrospective ECG-gated DCE-MDCT imaging. Although infarct SNR and CNR were significantly higher for the retrospective gated protocol, prospective ECG-gated DCE-MDCT provides high-resolution imaging of MI, while substantially lowering the radiation dose.
Collapse