Purpose. The aim of our study was to assess the influence of heart rate on the selection of the optimal reconstruction window with 40-slice multidetector-row computed tomography (40-MDCT) coronary angiography. Materials and methods. We studied 170 patients (114 men, age 60±11.3 years) with suspected or known coronary artery disease with 40-MDCT coronary angiography. Patients [mean heart rate (HR) 62.9±9.3 bpm, range 42-94 bpm] were clustered in two groups (group A: HR ≤65 bpm; group B: HR >65 bpm). Multiphase reconstruction data sets were obtained with a retrospective electrocardiogram (ECG)-gated 40-MDCT coronary angiography scan from 0% to 95% every 5% of the R-R interval. Two radiologists in consensus evaluated the best data sets for diagnostic purposes. Results. In group A, the optimal reconstruction windows were at 70% (55/110, 71/110 and 69/110 for the right coronary artery, left anterior descending and the left circumflex, respectively) and 75% (26/110, 28/110 and 28/110, respectively) of the R-R interval. In group B, a wide range of reconstruction windows were employed, both in the end-systolic phase at 40% (32/60, 18/60 and 17/60, for the right coronary artery, left anterior descending and circumflex, respectively) and diastolic phases at 70% (12/60, 22/60 and 19/60, respectively). Six scans were excluded due to severe respiratory artefacts. Conclusions. Optimal position of the image reconstruction window relative to the cardiac cycle is significantly influenced by the heart rate during scanning. Diastolic reconstruction phases often allowed an optimal assessment in group A. Reconstruction phases from 30% to 45% are advisable for higher heart rates.

, , ,
doi.org/10.1007/s11547-008-0303-4, hdl.handle.net/1765/29217
La Radiologia Medica
Erasmus MC: University Medical Center Rotterdam

Runza, G, la Grutta, L, Alaimo, V, Damiani, L, La Fata, A, Alberghina, F, … Lagalla, R. (2008). Influence of heart rate in the selection of the optimal reconstruction window in routine clinical multislice coronary angiography. La Radiologia Medica, 113(5), 644–657. doi:10.1007/s11547-008-0303-4