[Present status and future dreams of coronary MDCT from cardiologist's aspect]

[Evaluation of an exposed-radiation dose on a dual-source cardiac computed tomography examination with a prospective electrocardiogram-gated fast dual spiral scan]

We evaluated exposed-radiation doses on dual-source cardiac computed tomography (CT) examinations with prospective electrocardiogram (ECG)-gated fast dual spiral scans. After placing dosimeters at locations corresponding to each of the thoracic organs, prospective ECG-gated fast dual spirals and retrospective ECG-gated dual spiral scans were performed to measure the absorbed dose of each organ. In the prospective ECG-gated fast dual spiral scans, the average absorbed doses were 5.03 mGy for the breast, 9.96 mGy for the heart, 6.60 mGy for the lung, 6.48 mGy for the bone marrow, 9.73 mGy for the thymus, and 4.58 mGy for the skin. These values were about 5% of the absorbed doses for the retrospective ECG-gated dual spiral scan. However, the absorbed dose differed greatly at each scan, especially in the external organs such as the breast. For effective and safe use of the prospective ECG-gated fast dual spiral scan, it is necessary to understand these characteristics sufficiently.

[Usefulness and safety of propranolol injection into vein for acquisition of coronary multidetector-row computed tomography]

BACKGROUND

A low heart rate (HR), associated with a prolonged slow filling phase (SF), is necessary to obtain a high quality coronary CT at a low radiation dose with conventional 64 multidetector-row computed tomography (MDCT). The purpose of our study was to confirm the safety of injecting propranolol (2-10 mg) into the vein for lowering heart rate in patients requiring MDCT and to document the effect of the drug on HR, PQ and SF.

METHOD

Of 1290 consecutive patients who were initially considered for enrollment in the coronary MDCT study, 40 patients with atrial fibrillations, 3 with atrial flutters, and 13 with artificial pacemakers were excluded. Of the remaining 1234 patients (M/F=714/520), 331 had already taken an oral beta-blocker before the CT examination, and were included in the study. In patients with no contraindications, propranolol was aggressively injected (2-10 mg) into the vein to reduce the HR.

RESULT

In patients not taking an oral beta blocker, 2 mg propranolol reduced the HR by -10±5 bpm and 10 mg, by -20±7 bpm. However, in patients taking an oral beta-blocker, the decrease in HR by propranolol was minimal (2 mg, -6±4 bpm; 10 mg, -10±6 bpm). Propranolol significantly prolonged the PQ interval (from 169±27 to 179±29 ms, P<0.0001), and SF (from 125±69 to 264±79 ms, P<0.0001). Adverse effects of propranolol injection were observed in only 3 [2 mild hypotension and 1 paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (recovered to sinus rhythm by DC counter shock)] of 3212 patients. All 3 patients became stable after 1 or 2 hours of rest and could return home.

CONCLUSION

Propranolol injection was a relatively safe and useful method to reduce HR and prolong SF, necessary for obtaining high quality coronary MDCT with a low radiation dose.