Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study aims to evaluate image quality in patients with heart rates above or equal to 70 beats per minute (bpm), performed on a 16 cm scanner (256-slice General Electric Revolution) in comparison to a CT scanner with only 4 cm of coverage (64 slice Volume CT). BACKGROUND: Recent advancements in image acquisition, such as whole-heart coverage in a single rotation and post-processing methods in coronary computed tomographic angiography (CCTA), include motion-correction algorithms, such as SnapShot Freeze (SSF), which improve temporal resolution and allow for the assessment of coronary artery disease (CAD) with lower motion scores and better image qualities. Studies from the comprehensive evaluation of high temporal- and spatial-resolution cardiac CT using a wide coverage system (CONVERGE) registry (a multicenter registry at four centers) have shown the 16 cm CT scanner having a better image quality in comparison to the 4 cm scanner. However, these studies failed to include patients with undesirable or high heart rates due to well-documented poor image acquisition on prior generations of CCTA scanners. METHODS: A prospective, observational, multicenter cohort study comparing image quality, quantitively and qualitatively, on scans performed on a 16 cm CCTA in comparison to a cohort of images captured on a 4 cm CCTA at four centers. Participants were recruited based on broad inclusion criteria, and each patient in the 16 cm CCTA arm of the study received a CCTA scan using a 256-slice, whole-heart, single-beat scanner. These patients were then matched by age, gender, and heart rate to patients who underwent CCTA scans on a 4 cm CT scanner. Image quality was graded based on the signal-to-noise ratio, contrast-to-noise ratio, and on a Likert scale of 0-4: 0, very poor-4, excellent. RESULTS: 104 patients were evaluated for this study. The mean heart rate was 75 ± 7 in the 4 cm scanner and 75 ± 7 in the 16 cm one (p = 0.426). The signal-to-noise and contrast-to-noise ratios were higher in the 16 cm scanner (p = 0.0001). In addition, more scans were evaluated as having an excellent quality on the 16 cm scanner than on the 4 cm scanner (p < 0.0001) based on a 4-point Likert scale. CONCLUSIONS: The 16 cm scanner has a superior image quality for fast heart rates compared to the 4 cm scanner. This study shows that there is a significantly higher frequency of excellent and good studies showing better contrast-to-noise and signal-to-noise ratios with the 16 cm scanner compared to the 4 cm scanner.