Comparative assessment of image quality for coronary CT angiography with iobitridol and two contrast agents with higher iodine concentrations: iopromide and iomeprol. A multicentre randomized double-blind trial.

OBJECTIVES: To demonstrate non-inferiority of iobitridol 350 for coronary CT angiography (CTA) compared to higher iodine content contrast media regarding rate of patients evaluable for the presence of coronary artery stenoses. METHODS: In this multicentre trial, 452 patients were randomized to receive iobitridol 350, iopromide 370 or iomeprol 400 and underwent coronary CTA using CT systems with 64-detector rows or more. Two core lab readers assessed 18 coronary segments per patient regarding image quality (score 0 = non diagnostic to 4 = excellent quality), vascular attenuation, signal and contrast to noise ratio (SNR, CNR). Patients were considered evaluable if no segment had a score of 0. RESULTS: Per-patient, the rate of fully evaluable CT scans was 92.1, 95.4 and 94.6 % for iobitridol, iopromide and iomeprol, respectively. Non-inferiority of iobitridol over the best comparator was demonstrated with a 95 % CI of the difference of [-8.8 to 2.1], with a pre-specified non-inferiority margin of -10 %. Although average attenuation increased with higher iodine concentrations, average SNR and CNR did not differ between groups. CONCLUSIONS: With current CT technology, iobitridol 350 mg iodine/ml is not inferior to contrast media with higher iodine concentrations in terms of image quality for coronary stenosis assessment. KEY POINTS: • Iodine concentration is an important parameter for image quality in coronary CTA. • Contrast enhancement must be balanced against the amount of iodine injected. • Iobitridol 350 is non-inferior compared to CM with higher iodine concentrations. • Higher attenuation with higher iodine concentrations, but no SNR or CNR differences.

Effect of the ellipsoid shape of the left ventricular outflow tract on the echocardiographic assessment of aortic valve area in aortic stenosis.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies showed discrepancies between echocardiographic and multidector row CT (MDCT) measurements of aortic valve area (AVA). OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to evaluate the effect of the ellipsoid shape of the left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT), as shown and measured by MDCT, on the assessment of AVA by transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) in patients with severe aortic stenosis. METHODS: This retrospective single-center study involved 49 patients with severe aortic stenosis referred before transcatheter aortic valve implantation. The AVA was deduced from the continuity equation on TTE and from planimetry on cardiac MDCT. Area of the LVOT was calculated as follows: on TTE, from the measurement of LVOT diameter on parasternal long-axis view; on MDCT, from manual planimetry by using multiplanar reconstruction perpendicular to LVOT. RESULTS: At baseline, correlation of TTE vs MDCT AVA measurements was moderate (R = 0.622; P < .001). TTE underestimated AVA compared with MDCT (0.66 ± 0.15 cm2 vs. 0.87 ± 0.15 cm2; P < .001). After correcting the continuity equation with the LVOT area as measured by MDCT, mean AVA drawn from TTE did not differ from MDCT (0.86 ± 0.2 cm2) and correlation between TTE and MDCT measurements increased (R = 0.704; P < .001). CONCLUSION: Assuming that LVOT area is circular with TTE results in constant underestimation of the AVA with the continuity equation compared with MDCT planimetry. The elliptical not circular shape of LVOT largely explains these discrepancies.

Cardiac MRI assessment of right ventricular function in acquired heart disease: factors of variability.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: To evaluate intra- and inter-observer variability of right ventricular (RV) functional parameters as evaluated by cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in patients with acquired heart disease (AHD), and to identify factors associated with an increased variability. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty consecutive patients were enrolled. Right and left ventricular (LV) volumes, ejection fraction, and mass were determined from short-axis cine sequences. All analyzes were performed twice by three observers with various training-degree in cardiac MRI. Intra- and inter-observer variability was evaluated. The impact on variability of each of the following parameters was assessed: observer's experience, basal and apical slices selection, end-systolic phase selection, and delineation. RESULTS: Mean segmentation time ranged 9.8-19.0 minutes for RV and 6.4-9.2 minutes for LV. Variability of RV functional parameters measurement was strongly influenced by previous observer's experience: it was two to three times superior to that of LV, even for the most experienced observer. High variability in the measurement of RV mass was observed. For both ventricles, selection of the basal slice and delineation were major determinants of variability. CONCLUSION: As compared to LV, RV function assessment with cardiac MRI in AHD patients is much more variable and time-consuming. Observer's experience, selection of basal slice, and delineation are determinant.