| 覃杰,刘凌云,董云旭,朱康顺,郭宁,钱孝贤,吴震,单鸿.320排CT前瞻性和回顾性心电门控冠状动脉成像:放射剂量、图像质量及诊断结果的对照观察[J].中国医学影像技术,2010,26(5):951~954 |
| 320排CT前瞻性和回顾性心电门控冠状动脉成像:放射剂量、图像质量及诊断结果的对照观察 |
| Prospective and retrospective ECG gating for 320-detector CT of the coronary arteries: Comparison of radiation dose, image quality and diagnosis |
| 投稿时间：2009-11-03 修订日期：2009-12-29 |
| DOI： |
| 中文关键词: 体层摄影术,X线计算机 前瞻性心电门控 放射剂量 血管造影术 |
| 英文关键词:Tomography, X-ray computed Prospective ECG gating Radiation dose Angiography |
| 基金项目: |
|
| 摘要点击次数: 3187 |
| 全文下载次数: 926 |
| 中文摘要: |
| 目的 比较前瞻性心电门控及回顾性心电门控320排CT冠状动脉成像的放射剂量、图像质量及诊断结果。方法 对临床拟诊冠心病、心率<65次/分的500例患者依次分别采用前瞻性及回顾性心电门控冠状动脉成像扫描方案,分为P组(前瞻组)和R组(回顾组),评价两组的辐射剂量、图像质量及诊断结果。结果 P组和R组各有3750(15×250)个冠状动脉节段,P组和R组冠状动脉节段管径太小(<1.5 mm)难于评估分别占3.49%(131/3750)、3.78%(142/3750),可评估节段占96.51%(3619/3750)、96.12%(3608/3750),差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);P组和R组的图像评分差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。P组和R组平均辐射剂量为(3.36±1.00)mSv、(13.46±2.30)mSv,P组平均射线剂量较R组降低75.04%,差异有统计学意义(P<0.01)。P组的敏感度、特异度、阳性预测值及阴性预测值为93.22％、99.21％、91.64%、99.05％,R组的敏感性、特异性、阳性预测值及阴性预测值为94.55％、98.80％、95.86%、98.54％,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论 320排CT前瞻性心电门控扫描方案较回顾性辐射剂量明显降低,但冠状动脉图像质量及诊断结果与回顾性心电门控扫描无明显差异。 |
| 英文摘要: |
| Objective To compare radiation dose, image quality and diagnosis in patients undergoing 320-detector computed tomography (CT) coronary angiography with prospective and retrospective electrocardiographic (ECG) gating. Methods Coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) with prospective (group P, n=250) and retrospective (group R, n=250 ) ECG gating were performed in 500 consecutive patients with suspected coronary artery disease and heart rate less than 65 bpm, and the effective radiation dose, image quality and diagnosis were evaluated. Results In each 3750 segments (250 patients ×15 segments per patient) in group P and group R, 131 (3.49%) and 142 (3.78%) were found too small (1.5 mm) to be characterized, while 96.51%(3619/3750) and 96.12% (3608/3750) segments could be evaluated, and no statistical difference in images score was detected in group P and group R (P>0.05). Mean radiation dose was significantly different in group P ( mSv) and group R ( mSv) (P<0.01). Compared with CAG, the sensitivity, specificity, false positive and false negative value in group P (93.22％, 99.21％, 91.64%, 99.05％) and R (94.55％, 98.80％, 95.86%, 98.54％) were not significantly different. Conclusion 320-detector CT coronary angiography performed with prospective ECG gating has lower radiation dose compared with retrospective ECG gating, while image quality and diagnosis has no significant difference. |
| 查看全文 查看/发表评论 下载PDF阅读器 |
|
|
|
