Purpose The objective of this study is to assess the effect of heart rate, heart rate variability and z-axis location on coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) image quality using a 256-slice computed tomography (CT) scanner. Methods A total of 78 patients with 254 CABG (762 graft segments) were recruited to undergo CABG assessment with 256-slice CT and prospective ECG-gating. Two observers rated graft segments for image quality on a 5-point scale. Quantitative measurements were also made. Logistic and cumulative link mixed models were used to assess the predictors of graft image quality. Results Graft image quality was judged as diagnostic (scores 5 (excellent), 4 (good) and 3 (moderate)) in 96.6% of the 762 segments. Interobserver agreement was excellent (kappa ≥0.90). Graft image quality was not affected by heart rate level. However, high heart rate variability was associated with an important and significant image quality deterioration (odds ratio 4.31; p = 0.036). Distal graft segments had significantly lower image quality scores than proximal segments (p ≤ 0.02). Significantly higher noise was noted at the origin of the mammary grafts (p = 0.001), owing to streak artifacts from the shoulders. Conclusion CABG imaging with 270-msec rotation 256-slice CT and prospective ECG-gating showed an adequate image quality in 96.6% of graft segments, and an excellent interobserver agreement. Graft image quality was not influenced by heart rate level. Image quality scores were however significantly decreased in patients with high heart rate variability, as well as in distal graft segments, which are closer to the heart.
References
[1]
Epstein AJ, Polsky D, Yang F, Yang L, Groeneveld PW (2011) Coronary revascularization trends in the United States (2001–2008). JAMA 305: 1769–1776. doi: 10.1001/jama.2011.551
[2]
Moller CH, Perko MJ, Lund JT, Andersen LW, Kelbaek H, et al. (2010) Graft patency after off-pump versus on-pump coronary artery surgery in high-risk patients. Scand Cardiovasc J 44: 161–7. doi: 10.3109/14017430903556286
[3]
Scanlon PJ, Faxon DP, Audet AM, Carabello B, Dehmer GJ, et al. (1999) ACC/AHA guidelines for coronary angiography. A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on practice guidelines (Committee on Coronary Angiography). Developed in collaboration with the Society for Cardiac Angiography and Interventions. J Am Coll Cardiol 33: 1756–1824. doi: 10.1161/01.cir.99.17.2345
[4]
Noto TJ Jr, Johnson LW, Krone R, Weaver WF, Clark DA, et al. (1991) Cardiac catheterization 1990: a report of the Registry of the Society for Cardiac Angiography and Interventions. Cathet Cardiovasc Diagn 24: 75–83. doi: 10.1002/ccd.1810240202
[5]
Hamon M, Lepage O, Malagutti P, Riddell JW, Morello R, et al. (2008) Diagnostic performance of 16- and 64-section spiral CT for coronary artery bypass graft assessment: meta-analysis. Radiology 247: 679–686. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2473071132
[6]
Marano R, Storto ML, Maddestra N, Bonomo L (2004) Non-invasive assessment of coronary artery bypass graft with retrospectively ECG-gated four-row multi-detector spiral computed tomography. Eur Radiol 14: 1353–62. doi: 10.1007/s00330-004-2323-3
[7]
Anders K, Baum U, Schmid M, Ropers D, Schmid A, et al. (2006) Coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) patency: assessment with high-resolution submillimeter 16-slice multidetector-row computed tomography (MDCT) versus coronary angiography. Eur J Radiol 57: 336–44. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2005.12.018
[8]
Ropers D, Pohle FK, Kuettner A, Pflederer T, Anders K, et al. (2006) Diagnostic accuracy of noninvasive coronary angiography in patients after bypass surgery using 64-slice spiral computed tomography with 330-ms gantry rotation. Circulation 114: 2334–41. doi: 10.1161/circulationaha.106.631051
[9]
Bourassa MG, Fisher LD, Campeau L, Gillespie MJ, McConney M, et al. (1985) Long-term fate of bypass grafts: the coronary artery surgery study (CASS) and Montreal Heart Institute experiences. Circulation 72: V71–V78.
[10]
Dewey M, Teige F, Schnapauff D, Laule M, Borges AC, et al. (2006) Noninvasive detection of coronary artery stenoses with multislice computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging. Ann Intern Med 145: 407–415. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-145-6-200609190-00004
[11]
Schonenberger E, Schnapauff D, Teige F, Laule M, Hamm B, et al. (2007) Patient acceptance of noninvasive and invasive coronary angiography. PLoS One 2: e246. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0000246
[12]
Taylor AJ, Cerqueira M, Hodgson JM, Mark D, Min J, et al. (2010) ACCF/SCCT/ACR/AHA/ASE/ASNC/NASCI/SCAI/SC？MR2010 appropriate use criteria for cardiac computed tomography. A report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Appropriate Use Criteria Task Force, the Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, the American College of Radiology, the American Heart Association, the American Society of Echocardiography, the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, the North American Society for Cardiovascular Imaging, the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance. J Am Coll Cardiol 56: 1864–94. doi: 10.1161/cir.0b013e3181fcae66
[13]
Weustink AC, Nieman K, Pugliese F, Mollet NR, Meijboom WB, et al. (2009) Diagnostic accuracy of computed tomography angiography in patients after bypass grafting: comparison with invasive coronary angiography. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 2: 816–824. doi: 10.1016/j.jcmg.2009.02.010
[14]
Goetti R, Leschka S, Baumuller S, Plass A, Wieser M, et al. (2010) Low dose high-pitch spiral acquisition 128-slice dual-source computed tomography for the evaluation of coronary artery bypass graft patency. Invest Radiol 45: 324–30. doi: 10.1097/rli.0b013e3181dfa47e
[15]
Lee YW, Yang CC, Mok GS, Law WY, Su CT, et al. (2012) Prospectively versus retrospectively ECG-gated 256-slice CT angiography to assess coronary artery bypass grafts—comparison of image quality and radiation dose. PLoS One 7: e49212. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0049212
[16]
De Graaf FR, van Velzen JE, Witkowska AJ, Schuijf JD, van der Bijl N, et al. (2011) Diagnostic performance of 320-slice multidetector computed tomography coronary angiography in patients after coronary artery bypass grafting. Eur Radiol 21: 2285–2296. doi: 10.1007/s00330-011-2192-5
[17]
Tremblay J-A, Stevens L-M, Chartrand-Lefebvre C, Chandonnet M, Mansour S, et al.. (2013) A novel composite coronary bypass graft strategy: the saphenous vein bridge - feasibility and clinical safety. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 44e302–e307.
Cohen J (1968) Weighed kappa: nominal scale agreement with provision for scaled disagreement or partial credit. Psychological Bulletin 70: 213–220. doi: 10.1037/h0026256
[20]
Viera AJ, Garrett JM (2005) Understanding interobserver agreement: the kappa statistic. Fam Med 37: 360–3.
[21]
R Development Core Team (2012) R: A language and environment for statistical computing, R Foundation for Statistical Computing Editor. Vienna, Austria.
[22]
Yee TW (2010) The VGAM Package for Categorical Data Analysis. Journal of Statistical Software 32: 1–34.
[23]
Leschka S, Scheffel H, Husmann L, G？mperli O, Marincek B, et al. (2008) Effect of decrease in heart rate variability on the diagnostic accuracy of 64-MDCT coronary angiography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 190: 1583–1590. doi: 10.2214/ajr.07.2000
[24]
Wintersperger BJ, Nikolaou K, von Ziegler F, Johnson T, Rist C, et al. (2006) Image quality, motion artifacts, and reconstruction timing of 64-slice coronary computed tomography angiography with 0.33-second rotation speed. Invest Radiol 41: 436–442. doi: 10.1097/01.rli.0000202639.99949.c6
[25]
Brodoefel H, Burgstahler C, Tsiflikas I, Reimann A, Schroeder S, et al. (2008) Dual-source CT: effect of heart rate, heart rate variability, and calcification on image quality and diagnostic accuracy. Radiology 247: 346–355. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2472070906
[26]
Muenzel D, Noel PB, Dorn F, Dobritz M, Rummeny EJ, et al. (2011) Step and shoot coronary CT angiography using 256-slice CT: effect of heart rate and heart rate variability on image quality. Eur Radiol 21: 2277–2224. doi: 10.1007/s00330-011-2185-4
[27]
Meyer TS, Martinoff S, Hadamitzky M, Will A, Kastrati A, et al. (2007) Improved noninvasive assessment of coronary artery bypass grafts with 64-slice computed tomographic angiography in an unselected patient population. J Am Coll Cardiol 49: 946–950. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2006.10.066
[28]
Lee JH, Chun EJJ, Choi SI, Vembar M, Lim C, et al. (2011) Prospective versus retrospective ECG-gated 64-detector coronary CT angiography for evaluation of coronary artery bypass graft patency: comparison of image quality, radiation dose and diagnostic accuracy. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 27: 657–667. doi: 10.1007/s10554-011-9904-4
[29]
Leschka S, Wildermuth S, Boehm T, Desbiolles L, Husmann L, et al. (2006) Noninvasive coronary angiography with 64-section CT: effect of average heart rate and heart rate variability on image quality. Radiology 241: 378–385. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2412051384
[30]
Schlosser T, Konorza T, Hunold P, Kuhl H, Schmermund A, et al. (2004) Noninvasive visualization of coronary artery bypass grafts using 16-detector row computed tomography. J Am Coll Cardiol 44: 1224–9. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2003.09.075
[31]
Feuchtner GM, Schachner T, Bonatti J, Friedrich GJ, Soegner P, et al. (2007) Diagnostic performance of 64-slice computed tomography in evaluation of coronary artery bypass grafts. AJR Am J Roentgenol 189: 574–580. doi: 10.2214/ajr.07.2174
[32]
Utsunomiya D, Weigold WG, Weissman G, Taylor AJ (2012) Effect of hybrid iterative reconstruction technique on quantitative and qualitative image analysis at 256-slice prospective gating cardiac CT. Eur Radiol 22: 1287–94. doi: 10.1007/s00330-011-2361-6
