Heng Zhou, Cheng Yan, Min Ji, Zhang Shi, Chun Yang, Mengsu Zeng
{"title":"Supported bridge position in one-stop coronary and craniocervical CT angiography: A randomized clinical trial.","authors":"Heng Zhou, Cheng Yan, Min Ji, Zhang Shi, Chun Yang, Mengsu Zeng","doi":"10.1002/acm2.14561","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The routine patient arm position differs between coronary CT angiography (CTA) and craniocervical CTA protocols. To investigate the clinical feasibility of supported bridge position (SBP) in combined coronary and craniocervical CTA.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Prospective enrollment included patients with suspected coronary artery disease (CAD) or craniocervical artery disease (CCAD) from February 2022 to November 2022. Patients were divided into three groups: coronary or craniocervical CTA according to CAD or CCAD using standard position (group 1), combined CTA with naturally arm-down position (group 2) and SBP (group 3). Statistical analysis of objective image quality, such as noise and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), subjective image quality, patient position and radiation dose was performed among the three groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Two hundred and one patients (median age, 67 years; 138 men) were included. In terms of CNR for cardiac segment, group 1 and group 3 had no statistical difference, both significantly higher than group 2 (group 1, 12.56 ± 2.05; group 2, 10.4 ± 2.43; group 3, 11.94 ± 2.22; P < 0.05). Subjective image evaluation revealed no statistically significant differences among the three groups of coronary arteries (P > 0.05). Additionally, the lateral project value of scout images at the heart level indicated a significant difference (119.48 ± 12.19, 182.34 ± 25.09, and 140.58 ± 19.68 of patients, for group 1, group 2, and group 3, respectively, P < 0.05). No statistical differences were observed in <math> <semantics><msub><mi>CTDI</mi> <mi>vol</mi></msub> <annotation>${\\mathrm{CTDI}}_{{\\mathrm{vol}}}$</annotation></semantics> </math> between group 1 and group 3 (cardiac scan, 15.77 [15.07-16.37] mGy vs. 14.88 [12.19-18.81] mGy; craniocervical scan, 7.85 [7.69-8.01] mGy vs. 7.88 [7.88-7.89] mGy; all P > 0.05). However, group 2 had a higher dose (19.54 [16.86-22.85] mGy and 10.87 [10.86-10.87] mGy, for cardiac and craniocervical scans, respectively).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In comparison with a naturally arm-down position, SBP, which aligns the humerus bones with the spinal column, can provide diagnostic image quality at routine dose level of standard position CTA.</p>","PeriodicalId":14989,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/acm2.14561","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objective: The routine patient arm position differs between coronary CT angiography (CTA) and craniocervical CTA protocols. To investigate the clinical feasibility of supported bridge position (SBP) in combined coronary and craniocervical CTA.
Methods: Prospective enrollment included patients with suspected coronary artery disease (CAD) or craniocervical artery disease (CCAD) from February 2022 to November 2022. Patients were divided into three groups: coronary or craniocervical CTA according to CAD or CCAD using standard position (group 1), combined CTA with naturally arm-down position (group 2) and SBP (group 3). Statistical analysis of objective image quality, such as noise and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), subjective image quality, patient position and radiation dose was performed among the three groups.
Results: Two hundred and one patients (median age, 67 years; 138 men) were included. In terms of CNR for cardiac segment, group 1 and group 3 had no statistical difference, both significantly higher than group 2 (group 1, 12.56 ± 2.05; group 2, 10.4 ± 2.43; group 3, 11.94 ± 2.22; P < 0.05). Subjective image evaluation revealed no statistically significant differences among the three groups of coronary arteries (P > 0.05). Additionally, the lateral project value of scout images at the heart level indicated a significant difference (119.48 ± 12.19, 182.34 ± 25.09, and 140.58 ± 19.68 of patients, for group 1, group 2, and group 3, respectively, P < 0.05). No statistical differences were observed in between group 1 and group 3 (cardiac scan, 15.77 [15.07-16.37] mGy vs. 14.88 [12.19-18.81] mGy; craniocervical scan, 7.85 [7.69-8.01] mGy vs. 7.88 [7.88-7.89] mGy; all P > 0.05). However, group 2 had a higher dose (19.54 [16.86-22.85] mGy and 10.87 [10.86-10.87] mGy, for cardiac and craniocervical scans, respectively).
Conclusions: In comparison with a naturally arm-down position, SBP, which aligns the humerus bones with the spinal column, can provide diagnostic image quality at routine dose level of standard position CTA.
期刊介绍:
Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics is an international Open Access publication dedicated to clinical medical physics. JACMP welcomes original contributions dealing with all aspects of medical physics from scientists working in the clinical medical physics around the world. JACMP accepts only online submission.
JACMP will publish:
-Original Contributions: Peer-reviewed, investigations that represent new and significant contributions to the field. Recommended word count: up to 7500.
-Review Articles: Reviews of major areas or sub-areas in the field of clinical medical physics. These articles may be of any length and are peer reviewed.
-Technical Notes: These should be no longer than 3000 words, including key references.
-Letters to the Editor: Comments on papers published in JACMP or on any other matters of interest to clinical medical physics. These should not be more than 1250 (including the literature) and their publication is only based on the decision of the editor, who occasionally asks experts on the merit of the contents.
-Book Reviews: The editorial office solicits Book Reviews.
-Announcements of Forthcoming Meetings: The Editor may provide notice of forthcoming meetings, course offerings, and other events relevant to clinical medical physics.
-Parallel Opposed Editorial: We welcome topics relevant to clinical practice and medical physics profession. The contents can be controversial debate or opposed aspects of an issue. One author argues for the position and the other against. Each side of the debate contains an opening statement up to 800 words, followed by a rebuttal up to 500 words. Readers interested in participating in this series should contact the moderator with a proposed title and a short description of the topic