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

IF 1.2 Q3 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS
N. Pandey, Sayannika Chakraborty, M. Verma, Priya Jagia
{"title":"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","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":"{\"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}","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

摘要

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。
Low-dose, high-pitch, spiral (FLASH) mode versus conventional sequential method for coronary artery calcium scoring: A derivation-validation study
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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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