skip to main content
Language:
Search Limited to: Search Limited to: Resource type Show Results with: Show Results with: Search type Index

8 Comparison of the accuracy of flash versus prospectively acquired ct coronary angiography

Heart (British Cardiac Society), 2019-05, Vol.105 (Suppl 5), p.A3 [Peer Reviewed Journal]

2019, Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions ;2019 2019, Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions ;ISSN: 1355-6037 ;EISSN: 1468-201X ;DOI: 10.1136/heartjnl-2019-BSCI.8

Full text available

Citations Cited by
  • Title:
    8 Comparison of the accuracy of flash versus prospectively acquired ct coronary angiography
  • Author: Liang, Kate ; Dayer, Mark ; Gosling, Oliver E
  • Subjects: Medical imaging
  • Is Part Of: Heart (British Cardiac Society), 2019-05, Vol.105 (Suppl 5), p.A3
  • Description: IntroductionComputed Tomography Coronary Angiography (CTCA) is an accurate and established diagnostic tool. The development of ECG triggered spiral acquisition (FLASH) has allowed reduction in radiation dose whilst still providing diagnostic information. We aimed to compare the accuracy of FLASH and prospective CTCA acquisitions within our CT service.MethodRetrospective analysis of demographic and outcome data was performed for 2857 scans over a 69 month period (Feb 2013–Nov 2018). Results of CTCA and Invasive Coronary Angiography (ICA) were compared for patients having had FLASH or prospective scan protocols.Results289 patients were identified as having had both CTCA and ICA. 55 (19%) of these studies were FLASH, 173 (59.9%) prospective, 2 (0.7%) retrospective, 41 (14.2%) calcium score only, and 18 (6.2%) requiring ≥2 contrast studies. [Results are reported FLASH vs Prospective] Diagnostic scans in 92.7% vs 93.6%. Mean BMI (Kgm²): 28 (22-46) vs 30 (18-46). Mean acquisition HR (bpm): 55 (48-70) vs 59 (41-166, median 59). Median dose metoprolol (mg): 5 (0-30) vs 5 (0-50). Median DLP (mGy*cm): 79 (49-351) vs 199 (60-964). There was 58.2% agreement with FLASH studies and ICA versus 67.1% agreement with prospective acquisitions. This was not statistically significant (p=0.26).ConclusionOur data demonstrates that there is no statistically significant difference between FLASH and prospectively gated CTCA studies within our service. There is however a trend demonstrating that FLASH scans are not as accurate as prospectively gated scans although this is in a relatively small patient population. More studies with larger patient numbers and multi-centre analysis are recommended.
  • Publisher: London: BMJ Publishing Group LTD
  • Language: English
  • Identifier: ISSN: 1355-6037
    EISSN: 1468-201X
    DOI: 10.1136/heartjnl-2019-BSCI.8
  • Source: ProQuest Central
Back to results list
INSPIRE LIBRARY - TON DUC THANG UNIVERSITY (84-028) 37 755 057 Feedback
19 Nguyen Huu Tho St. Dist.7, HCM thuvien@tdtu.edu.vn

Copyright © 2017 INSPIRE LIBRARY - TON DUC THANG UNIVERSITY

Searching Remote Databases, Please Wait