Low-dose, high-pitch, spiral (FLASH) mode versus conventional sequential method for coronary artery calcium scoring: A derivation-validation study

IF 1.2 Q3 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS
N. Pandey, Sayannika Chakraborty, M. Verma, Priya Jagia
{"title":"Low-dose, high-pitch, spiral (FLASH) mode versus conventional sequential method for coronary artery calcium scoring: A derivation-validation study","authors":"N. Pandey, Sayannika Chakraborty, M. Verma, Priya Jagia","doi":"10.34172/jcvtr.31736","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: The present study sought to compare the diagnostic accuracy and radiation dose of ECG-gated, ultra-fast, low-dose, high-pitch, spiral (FLASH) mode versus conventional, ECG-gated, sequential coronary artery calcium (CAC) scoring in patients with suspected coronary artery disease (CAD). Methods: The study included 120 patients who underwent both conventional scanning and FLASH mode scanning and were subdivided into derivation and validation cohorts. In the conventional sequential (step-and-shoot) protocol, prospective ECG-gated, non-contrast acquisition was performed at 70% of R-R interval. The spiral (FLASH) mode utilized a high-pitch and high-speed gantry rotation scanning mode where acquisition of the entire heart was done within a single cardiac cycle with prospective ECG-gating at 70% of R-R interval. Results: Correlation between CAC scores derived from conventional (cCAC) and FLASH mode (fCAC) in derivation cohort was excellent (r=0.99; P<0.001). A linear regression model was used to develop a formula for deriving the estimated CAC score (eCAC) from fCAC (eCAC=0.978 x fCAC). In validation cohort, eCAC showed excellent agreement with cCAC (ICC=0.9983; 95%CI: 0.9972 - 0.9990). Excellent agreement for risk classification (weighted kappa=0.93898; 95%CI: 0.86833 - 1.0000) was observed with 95% (57/60) scores falling within the same risk category. Effective dose was significantly lower in FLASH mode (conventional, 0.58±0.21 mSv vs. FLASH, 0.34±0.12 mSv; P<0.0001). Conclusion: CAC scoring using FLASH mode is feasible with high accuracy and shows excellent agreement with conventional CAC scores at significantly reduced radiation doses.","PeriodicalId":15207,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cardiovascular and Thoracic Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Cardiovascular and Thoracic Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.34172/jcvtr.31736","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: The present study sought to compare the diagnostic accuracy and radiation dose of ECG-gated, ultra-fast, low-dose, high-pitch, spiral (FLASH) mode versus conventional, ECG-gated, sequential coronary artery calcium (CAC) scoring in patients with suspected coronary artery disease (CAD). Methods: The study included 120 patients who underwent both conventional scanning and FLASH mode scanning and were subdivided into derivation and validation cohorts. In the conventional sequential (step-and-shoot) protocol, prospective ECG-gated, non-contrast acquisition was performed at 70% of R-R interval. The spiral (FLASH) mode utilized a high-pitch and high-speed gantry rotation scanning mode where acquisition of the entire heart was done within a single cardiac cycle with prospective ECG-gating at 70% of R-R interval. Results: Correlation between CAC scores derived from conventional (cCAC) and FLASH mode (fCAC) in derivation cohort was excellent (r=0.99; P<0.001). A linear regression model was used to develop a formula for deriving the estimated CAC score (eCAC) from fCAC (eCAC=0.978 x fCAC). In validation cohort, eCAC showed excellent agreement with cCAC (ICC=0.9983; 95%CI: 0.9972 - 0.9990). Excellent agreement for risk classification (weighted kappa=0.93898; 95%CI: 0.86833 - 1.0000) was observed with 95% (57/60) scores falling within the same risk category. Effective dose was significantly lower in FLASH mode (conventional, 0.58±0.21 mSv vs. FLASH, 0.34±0.12 mSv; P<0.0001). Conclusion: CAC scoring using FLASH mode is feasible with high accuracy and shows excellent agreement with conventional CAC scores at significantly reduced radiation doses.
低剂量、高间距、螺旋(FLASH)模式与传统顺序法冠状动脉钙化评分对比:推导验证研究
导言本研究旨在比较疑似冠状动脉疾病(CAD)患者的心电图门控、超快速、低剂量、高螺距螺旋(FLASH)模式与传统心电图门控、顺序冠状动脉钙化(CAC)评分的诊断准确性和辐射剂量。研究方法该研究纳入了 120 名接受传统扫描和 FLASH 模式扫描的患者,并将其细分为推导组和验证组。在传统的顺序(步进-拍摄)方案中,前瞻性心电图门控非对比度采集是在 R-R 间期的 70% 时进行的。螺旋(FLASH)模式采用高螺距和高速龙门旋转扫描模式,在一个心动周期内采集整个心脏,并在 R-R 间期的 70% 处进行前瞻性心电图选通。结果在衍生队列中,通过传统模式(cCAC)和 FLASH 模式(fCAC)得出的 CAC 分数之间的相关性非常好(r=0.99;P<0.001)。通过线性回归模型,得出了从 fCAC 得出估计 CAC 分数(eCAC)的公式(eCAC=0.978 x fCAC)。在验证队列中,eCAC 与 cCAC 的一致性极佳(ICC=0.9983;95%CI:0.9972 - 0.9990)。风险分类的一致性极佳(加权卡帕=0.93898;95%CI:0.86833 - 1.0000),95%(57/60)的评分属于同一风险类别。FLASH模式的有效剂量明显较低(传统模式为0.58±0.21 mSv,FLASH模式为0.34±0.12 mSv;P<0.0001)。结论:使用FLASH模式进行CAC评分是可行的,准确度高,与传统的CAC评分显示出极好的一致性,且辐射剂量明显降低。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Cardiovascular and Thoracic Research
Journal of Cardiovascular and Thoracic Research CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS-
CiteScore
2.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
22
审稿时长
7 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信