Comparison of Coronary Computed Tomography Angiography Image Quality With High-concentration and Low-concentration Contrast Agents: The Randomized CONCENTRATE Trial
- PMID: 36821380
- DOI: 10.1097/RTI.0000000000000633
Comparison of Coronary Computed Tomography Angiography Image Quality With High-concentration and Low-concentration Contrast Agents: The Randomized CONCENTRATE Trial
Abstract
Purpose: To confirm that the image quality of coronary computed tomography (CT) angiography with a low tube voltage (80 to 100 kVp), iterative reconstruction, and low-concentration contrast agents (iodixanol 270 to 320 mgI/mL) was not inferior to that with conventional high tube voltage (120 kVp) and high-concentration contrast agent (iopamidol 370 mgI/mL).
Materials and methods: This prospective, multicenter, noninferiority, randomized trial enrolled a total of 318 patients from 8 clinical sites. All patients were randomly assigned 1: 1: 1 for each contrast medium of 270, 320, and 370 mgI/mL. CT scans were taken with a standard protocol in the high-concentration group (370 mgI/mL) and with 20 kVp lower protocol in the low-concentration group (270 or 320 mgI/mL). Image quality and radiation dose were compared between the groups. Image quality was evaluated with a score of 1 to 4 as subject image quality.
Results: The mean HU, signal-to-noise ratio, and contrast-to-noise ratio of the 3 groups were significantly different (all P<0.0001). The signal-to-noise ratio and contrast-to-noise ratio of the low-concentration groups were significantly lower than those of the high-concentration group (P<0.05). However, the image quality scores were not significantly different among the 3 groups (P=0.745). The dose length product and effective dose of the high-concentration group were significantly higher than those of the low-concentration group (P<0.0001 and 0.003, respectively).
Conclusions: The CT protocol with iterative reconstruction and lower tube voltage for low-concentration contrast agents significantly reduced the effective radiation dose (mean: 3.7±2.7 to 4.1±3.1 mSv) while keeping the subjective image quality as good as the standard protocol (mean: 5.7±3.4 mSv).
Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
Conflict of interest statement
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
References
-
- Miller JM, Rochitte CE, Dewey M, et al. Diagnostic performance of coronary angiography by 64-row CT. N Engl J Med. 2008;359:2324–2336.
-
- Lu MT, Douglas PS, Udelson JE, et al. Safety of coronary CT angiography and functional testing for stable chest pain in the PROMISE trial: a randomized comparison of test complications, incidental findings, and radiation dose. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2017;11:373–382.
-
- Erthal F, Premaratne M, Yam Y, et al. Appropriate use criteria for cardiac computed tomography: does computed tomography have incremental value in all appropriate use criteria categories? J Thorac Imaging. 2018;33:132–137.
-
- Douglas PS, Hoffmann U, Patel MR, et al. Outcomes of anatomical versus functional testing for coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med. 2015;372:1291–1300.
-
- Brenner DJ, Hall EJ. Computed tomography—an increasing source of radiation exposure. N Engl J Med. 2007;357:2277–2284.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources