Biomedical subjects
Tom Giesler
Publications and source records attributed to Tom Giesler.
Comparison of image quality in contrast-enhanced coronary-artery visualization by electron beam tomography and retrospectively electrocardiogram-gated multislice spiral computed tomography.
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: To compare the image quality of electron beam tomography (EBT) and multislice spiral CT (MSCT) for coronary artery visualization. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two groups of 30 patients without coronary stenoses were studied by MSCT (4 x 1 mm collimation) or EBT (3 mm slice thickness). Contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), overall length of the visualized arteries and vessel length free of motion artifacts were measured. RESULTS: Length of visualized arteries was equal in MSCT and EBT. In EBT, longer segments were depicted free of motion artifacts (MSCT: 73%, EBT: 92% of visualized length, P< 0.001) and CNR was significantly higher than in MSCT (15.4 vs. 9.0; P< 0.001). In both modalities, vessel diameters correlated closely to quantitative coronary angiography. CONCLUSIONS: EBT and MSCT permit reliable coronary artery visualization and measurement of vessel diameters. For the used scan protocol, MSCT images had a lower CNR and were more frequently affected by motion.
Noninvasive visualization of coronary arteries using contrast-enhanced multidetector CT: influence of heart rate on image quality and stenosis detection.
OBJECTIVE: Although multidetector CT (MDCT) with retrospectively ECG-gated image reconstruction has been shown to permit noninvasive visualization of the coronary arteries, the 125-250 msec required for image acquisition frequently causes motion artifacts. We investigated the influence of a patient's heart rate on the presence of motion artifacts and on accuracy of stenosis detection on contrast-enhanced MDCT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In 100 patients, MDCT was performed, and ECG-gated cross-sectional images were retrospectively reconstructed. From the 10 data sets obtained for each patient (reconstructed at 0-90% of the cardiac cycle in increments of 10%), we chose the best data set for every coronary artery. The images of the arteries were evaluated for occurrence of artifacts and the presence of high-grade stenosis (diameter reduction exceeding 70%) or occlusions. MDCT results were compared with coronary angiographic findings. RESULTS: Of the 400 coronary arteries, 115 (29%) could not be evaluated because of motion artifacts (n = 84) or other reasons (n = 31). Overall, 51 (49%) of 104 stenoses were revealed on MDCT. For detecting stenosis in those arteries that we could evaluate, MDCT had a sensitivity of 91% (51 of 56 stenoses detected) and a specificity of 89%. As the heart rate increased, the number of arteries that could be evaluated decreased, and overall sensitivity for stenosis detection decreased from 62% (heart rate < or = 70 beats per minute) to 33% (heart rate > 70 beats per minute). CONCLUSION: MDCT can reveal coronary stenoses, but the usefulness of MDCT as an aid in accurately evaluating stenoses decreases as a patient's heart rate increases.