Abstract
Background: Coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) is now widely used in the diagnosis of coronary artery disease since it is a rapid, minimally invasive test with a diagnostic accuracy comparable to coronary angiography. However, to meet demands for increasing spatial and temporal resolution, higher x-ray radiation doses are required to circumvent the resulting increase in image noise. Exposure to high doses of ionizing radiation with CT imaging is a major health concern due to the potential risk of radiation-associated malignancy. Given its increasing use, a number of dose saving algorithms have been implemented to CCTA to minimize radiation exposure to “as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA)” without compromising diagnostic image quality.
Objective: The purpose of this review is to outline the most recent advances and current status of dose saving techniques in CCTA.
Method: PubMed, Medline, EMBASE and Scholar databases were searched to identify feasibility studies, clinical trials, and technology guidelines on the technical advances in CT scanner hardware and reconstruction software.
Results: Sub-millisievert (mSv) radiation doses have been reported for CCTA due to a combination of strategies such as prospective electrocardiogram-gating, high-pitch helical acquisition, tube current modulation, tube voltage reduction, heart rate reduction, and the most recent novel adaptive iterative reconstruction algorithms.
Conclusion: Advances in radiation dose reduction without loss of image quality justify the use of CCTA as a non-invasive alternative to coronary catheterization in the diagnosis of coronary artery disease.
Keywords: Coronary computed tomography angiography, effective radiation dose, image quality, prospective electrocardiogram- gating, tube voltage reduction, tube current modulation, iterative reconstruction.
Graphical Abstract
[1]
Salavati A, Radmanesh F, Heidari K, et al. Dual-source computed tomography angiography for diagnosis and assessment of coronary artery disease: Systematic review and meta-analysis. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr 2012; 6(2): 78-90.
[2]
Haberl R, Tittus J, Böhme E, et al. Multislice spiral computed tomographic angiography of coronary arteries in patients with suspected coronary artery disease: An effective filter before catheter angiography? Am Heart J 2005; 149(6): 1112-9.
[3]
National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence; Chest pain of
recent onset: assessment and diagnosis of recent onset chest pain or
discomfort of suspected cardiac origin [internet]. [London]: NICE; 2010.[updated 2016 Nov; cited 2016 Jan 21]. (NICE guidelines
[CG95]). Available fro. http://guidance.nice.org.uk/CG95
[4]
Yu L, Liu X, Leng S, et al. Radiation dose reduction in computed tomography: Techniques and future perspective. Imaging Med 2009; 1(1): 65-84.
[5]
Hausleiter Jr,, Meyer T,, Hermann F,, et al. Estimated radiation dose associated with cardiac CT angiography. JAMA 2009; 301(5): 500-7.
[6]
Einstein AJ, Henzlova MJ, Rajagopalan S. Estimating risk of cancer associated with radiation exposure from 64-slice computed tomography coronary angiography. JAMA 2007; 298(3): 317-23.
[7]
Halliburton SS, Abbara S, Chen MY, et al. SCCT guidelines on radiation dose and dose-optimization strategies in cardiovascular CT. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr 2011; 5: 198-224.
[8]
Stratis AI, Anthopoulos PL, Gavaliatsis IP, et al. Patient dose in cardiac radiology. Hellenic J Cardiol 2009; 50: 17-25.
[9]
Betsou S, Efstathopoulos EP, Katritsis D, Faulkner K, Panayiotakis G. Patient radiation doses during cardiac catheterization procedures. Br J Radiol 1998; 71: 634-9.
[10]
Vijayalakshmi K, Kelly D, Chapple C-L, et al. Cardiac catheterisation: Radiation doses and lifetime risk of malignancy. Heart 2007; 93: 370-1.
[11]
Le Coultre R, Bize J, Champendal M, et al. Exposure of the Swiss population by radiodiagnostics: 2013 review. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2016; 169(1-4): 221-4.
[12]
Plourde GB, Pancholy S, Nolan J, et al. Radiation exposure in relation to the arterial access site used for diagnostic coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet 2015; 386: 2192-203.
[13]
Pancholy SB, Joshi P, Shah S, et al. Effect of vascular access site choice on radiation exposure during coronary angiography. The REVERE trial (randomized evaluation of vascular entry site and radiation exposure). JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2015; 8(9): 1189-96.
[14]
Hoffmann MHK, Shi H, Schmid FT, et al. Noninvasive coronary imaging with MDCT in comparison to invasive conventional coronary angiography: A fast-developing technology. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2004; 182: 601-8.
[15]
Coles DR, Smail MA, Negus IS, et al. Comparison of radiation doses from multislice computed tomography coronary angiography and conventional diagnostic angiography. J Am Coll Cardiol 2006; 47(9): 1840-5.
[16]
Gorenoi V, Schönermark MP, Hagen A. CT coronary angiography vs. invasive coronary angiography in CHD. GMS Health Technol Assess 2012; 8: 1-16.
[17]
Budoff MJ, Achenbach S, Blumenthal RS, et al. Assessment of coronary artery disease by cardiac computed tomography. Circulation 2006; 114: 1761-91.
[18]
Xu L, Zhang Z. Coronary CT angiography with low radiation dose. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 2010; 26: 17-25.
[19]
Mahesh M, Cody DD. Physics of cardiac imaging with multiple-row detector CT. Radiographics 2007; 27: 1495-510.
[20]
Sabarudin A, Sun Z. Coronary CT angiography: Dose reduction strategies. World J Cardiol 2013; 5(12): 465-72.
[21]
Dey D, Slomka PJ, Berman DS. Achieving very-low-dose radiation exposure in cardiac computed tomography, single-photon emission computed tomography, and positron emission tomography. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging 2014; 7: 723-34.
[22]
Litmanovich DE, Tack DM, Shahrzad M, Bankier AA. Dose reduction in cardiothoracic CT: Review of currently available methods. Radiographics 2014; 34(3): 1469-89.
[23]
Klass O, Walker M, Siebach A, et al. Prospectively gated axial CT coronary angiography: comparison of image quality and effective radiation dose between 64- and 256-slice CT. Eur Radiol 2010; 20(5): 1124-31.
[24]
Hirai N, Horiguchi J, Fujioka C, et al. Prospective versus retrospective ECG-gated 64-detector coronary CT angiography: assessment of image quality, stenosis, and radiation dose. Radiology 2008; 248(2): 424-30.
[25]
Shuman WP, Branch KR, May JM, et al. Prospective versus retrospective ECG gating for 64-Detector CT of the coronary arteries: Comparison of image quality and patient radiation dose. Radiology 2008; 248(2): 431-7.
[26]
Earls JP, Berman EL, Urban BA, et al. Prospectively gated transverse coronary CT angiography versus retrospectively gated helical technique: Improved image quality and reduced radiation dose. Radiology 2008; 246(3): 742-53.
[27]
Goitein O, Beigel R, Matetzky S, et al. Prospectively gated coronary computed tomography angiography: Uncompromised quality with markedly reduced radiation exposure in acute chest pain evaluation. Isr Med Assoc J 2011; 13: 463-7.
[28]
Kim JS, Choo KS, Jeong DW, et al. Step-and-shoot prospectively ECG-gated vs. retrospectively ECG-gated with tube current modulation coronary CT angiography using 128-slice MDCT patients with chest pain: Diagnostic performance and radiation dose. Acta Radiol 2011; 52(8): 860-5.
[29]
Rybicki FJ, Otero HJ, Steigner ML, et al. Initial evaluation of coronary images from 320-detector row computed tomography. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 2008; 24: 535-46.
[30]
Alkadhi H, Stolzmann P, Desbiolles L, et al. Low-dose, 128-slice, dual-source CT coronary angiography: Accuracy and radiation dose of the high-pitch and the step-and-shoot mode. Heart 2010; 96: 933-8.
[31]
Menke J, Unterberg-Buchwald C, Staab W, et al. Head-to-head comparison of prospectively triggered vs retrospectively gated coronary computed tomography angiography: Meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy, image quality, and radiation dose. Am Heart J 2012; 165(2): 154-63.
[32]
Sabarudin A, Sun Z, Ng K-H. Coronary computed tomography angiography with prospective electrocardiography triggering: A systematic review of image quality and radiation dose. Singapore Med J 2013; 54(1): 15-23.
[33]
Lewis MA, Pascoal A, Keevil SF, Lewis CA. Selecting a CT scanner for cardiac imaging: The heart of the matter. Br J Radiol 2016; 89(1065)20160376
[34]
Huang W, Xu Y, Lu D, Shi Y, Lu G. Single- versus multi-phase acquisition protocol for prospective-triggered sequential dual-source CT coronary angiography: Comparison of image quality and radiation dose. Clin Imaging 2015; 39: 597-602.
[36]
Hoffmann U, Ferencik M, Cury RC, Pena AJ. Coronary CT angiography. J Nucl Med 2006; 47: 797-806.
[37]
Lin E, Alessio A. What are the basic concepts of temporal, contrast, and spatial resolution in cardiac CT? J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr 2009; 3(6): 403-8.
[38]
Primak AN, McCollough CH, Bruesewitz MR, Zhang J, Fletcher JG. Relationship between noise, dose, and pitch in cardiac multi–detector row CT. Radiographics 2006; 26(6): 1785-94.
[39]
Achenbach S, Marwan M, Schepis T, et al. High-pitch spiral acquisition: A new scan mode for coronary CT angiography. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr 2009; 3(2): 117-21.
[40]
Ertel D, Lell MM, Harig F, et al. Cardiac spiral dual-source CT with high pitch: A feasibility study. Eur Radiol 2009; 19: 2357-62.
[41]
Flohr TG, McCollough CH, Bruder H, et al. First performance evaluation of a dual-source CT (DSCT) system. Eur Radiol 2006; 16(2): 256-68.
[42]
Stolzmann P, Goetti RP, Maurovich-Horvat P, et al. Predictors of image quality in high-pitch coronary CT angiography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2011; 197(4): 851-8.
[43]
Flohr T, Ohnesorge BM. Heart rate adaptive optimization of spatial and temporal resolution for electrocardiogram-gated multislice spiral CT of the heart. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2001; 25(6): 907-23.
[44]
Leschka S, Stolzmann P, Desbiolles L, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of high-pitch dual-source CT for the assessment of coronary stenoses: First experience. Eur Radiol 2009; 19: 2896-903.
[45]
Matsubara K, Sakuda K, Nunome H, et al. 128-slice dual-source CT coronary angiography with prospectively electrocardiography-triggered high-pitch spiral mode: Radiation dose, image quality, and diagnostic acceptability. Acta Radiol 2016; 57(1): 25-32.
[46]
Deseive S, Pugliese F, Meave A, et al. Image quality and radiation dose of a prospectively electrocardiography-triggered high-pitch data acquisition strategy for coronary CT angiography: The multicenter, randomized PROTECTION IV study. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr 2015; 9: 278-85.
[47]
Wichmann JL, Hu X, Engler A, et al. Dose levels and image quality of second‐generation 128‐slice dual‐source coronary CT angiography in clinical routine. Radiol Med 2015; 120: 1112-21.
[48]
Lell M, Marwan M, Schepis T, et al. Prospectively ECG-triggered high-pitch spiral acquisition for coronary CT angiography using dual source CT: Technique and initial experience. Eur Radiol 2009; 19: 2576-83.
[49]
Sommer WH, Albrecht E, Bamberg F, et al. Feasibility and radiation dose of high-pitch acquisition protocols in patients undergoing dual-source cardiac CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010; 195(6): 1306-12.
[50]
Mahabadi AA, Achenbach S, Burgstahler C, et al. Safety, efficacy, and indications of beta-adrenergic receptor blockade to reduce heart rate prior to coronary CT angiography. Radiology 2010; 257(3): 614-23.
[51]
Zimmerman SL, Kral BG, Fishman EK. Diagnostic quality of dual-source coronary CT exams performed without heart rate control: importance of obesity and heart rate on image quality. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2014; 38(6): 949-55.
[52]
Ropers U, Ropers D, Pflederer T, et al. Influence of heart rate on the diagnostic accuracy of dual-source computed tomography coronary angiography. J Am Coll Cardiol 2007; 50(225): 2393-8.
[53]
Chen MY, Shanbhag SM, Arai AE. Submillisievert median radiation dose for coronary angiography with a second-generation 320–detector row CT scanner in 107 consecutive patients. Radiology 2013; 267(1): 76-85.
[54]
McCollough CH, Primak AN, Saba O, et al. Dose performance of a 64-Channel dual-Source CT scanner. Radiology 2007; 243(3): 775-84.
[55]
Stolzmann P, Scheffel H, Schertler T, et al. Radiation dose estimates in dual-source computed tomography coronary angiography. Eur Radiol 2008; 18: 592-9.
[56]
Oda S, Katahira K, Utsunomiya D, et al. Improved image quality at 256-slice coronary CT angiography in patients with a high heart rate and coronary artery disease: Comparison with 64-slice CT imaging. Acta Radiol 2015; 56(11): 1308-14.
[57]
Sun K, Han R-J, Ma L-J, et al. Prospectively electrocardiogram-gated high-pitch spiral acquisition mode dual-source CT coronary angiography in patients with high heart rates: Comparison with retrospective electrocardiogram-gated spiral acquisition mode. Korean J Radiol 2012; 13(6): 684-93.
[58]
Roberts W, Wright A, Timmis J, Timmis A. Safety and efficacy of a rate control protocol for cardiac CT. Br J Radiol 2009; 82(976): 267-71.
[59]
Dewey M, Vavere AL, Arbab-Zadeh A, et al. Patient characteristics as predictors of image quality and diagnostic accuracy of MDCT compared with conventional coronary angiography for detecting coronary artery stenoses: CORE-64 multicenter international trial. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010; 194(1): 93-102.
[60]
Prasad SR, Wittram C, Shepard J-A, McLoud T, Rhea J. Standard-dose and 50%–reduced-dose chest CT: Comparing the effect on image quality. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002; 179: 461-5.
[61]
Hausleite Jr,, Martinoff S,, Hadamitzky M,, et al. Image quality and radiation exposure with a low tube voltage protocol for coronary CT angiography: Results of the PROTECTION II trial. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 2010; 3(11): 1113-23.
[62]
Pflederer T, Rudofsky L, Ropers D, et al. Image Quality in a Low Radiation exposure protocol for retrospectively ECG-gated coronary CT angiography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2009; 192(4): 1045-50.
[63]
Lei ZQ, Han P, Xu HB, Yu JM, Liu HL. Correlation between low tube voltage in dual source CT coronary artery imaging with image quality and radiation dose. J Huazhong Univ Sci Technolog Med Sci 2014; 34(4): 616-20.
[64]
Leipsic J, LaBounty TM, Mancini GBJ, et al. A prospective randomized controlled trial to assess the diagnostic performance of reduced tube voltage for coronary CT angiography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2011; 196(4): 801-6.
[65]
Meinel FG, Canstein C, Schoepf UJ, et al. Image quality and radiation dose of low tube voltage 3rd generation dual-source coronary CT angiography in obese patients: A phantom study. Eur Radiol 2014; 24: 1643-50.
[66]
Mangold S, Wichmann JL, Schoepf UJ, et al. Automated tube voltage selection for radiation dose and contrast medium reduction at coronary CT angiography using 3rd generation dual-source CT. Eur Radiol 2016; 26: 3608-16.
[67]
Wang Y, Wang X, Zhang Y, et al. Image quality and required radiation dose for coronary computed tomography angiography using an automatic tube potential selection technique. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 2014; 30: 89-94.
[68]
Oliveira LCG, Gottlieb I, Rizzi P, Lopes RT, Kodlulovich S. Radiation dose in cardiac CT angiography: Protocols and image quality. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2013; 155(1): 73-80.
[69]
Wang D, Hu XH, Zhang SZ, et al. Image quality and dose performance of 80 kV low dose scan protocol in high-pitch spiral coronary CT angiography: Feasibility study. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 2012; 28: 415-23.
[70]
Achenbach S, Marwan M, Ropers D, et al. Coronary computed tomography angiography with a consistent dose below 1 mSv using prospectively electrocardiogram-triggered high-pitch spiral acquisition. Eur Heart J 2010; 31: 340-6.
[71]
Fleischmann D, Boas FE. Computed tomography—old ideas and new technology. Eur Radiol 2011; 21(3): 510-7.
[72]
Padole A, Khawaja RDA, Kalra MK, Singh S. CT radiation dose and iterative reconstruction techniques. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2015; 204: W384-92.
[73]
Yin W-H, Lu B, Gao J-B, et al. Effect of reduced x-ray tube voltage, low iodine concentration contrast medium, and sinogram-affirmed iterative reconstruction on image quality and radiation dose at coronary CT angiography: Results of the prospective multicenter REALISE trial. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr 2015; 9: 215-24.
[74]
Yamashiro T, Miyara T, Honda O, et al. Adaptive iterative dose reduction using three dimensional processing (AIDR3D) improves chest CT image quality and reduces radiation exposure. PLoS One 2014; 9(8)e105735
[75]
Tomizawa N, Nojo T, Akahane M, et al. Adaptive iterative dose reduction in coronary CT angiography using 320-row CT: Assessment of radiation dose reduction and image quality. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr 2012; 6: 318-24.
[76]
Tatsugami F, Matsuki M, Nakai G, et al. The effect of adaptive iterative dose reduction on image quality in 320-detector row CT coronary angiography. Br J Radiol 2012; 85: e378-82.
[77]
Williams MC, Weir NW, Mirsadraee S, et al. Iterative reconstruction and individualized automatic tube current selection reduce radiation dose while maintaining image quality in 320-multidetector computed tomography coronary angiography. Clin Radiol 2013; 68(11): e570-7.
[78]
Yoo R-E, Park E-A, Lee W, et al. Image quality of adaptive iterative dose reduction 3D of coronary CT angiography of 640-slice CT: Comparison with filtered back-projection. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 2013; 29(3): 669-76.
[79]
Feger S, Rief M, Zimmermann E, et al. The impact of different levels of adaptive iterative dose reduction 3D on image quality of 320-Row coronary CT angiography: A clinical trial. PLoS One 2015; 10(5)e0125943
[80]
Wang G, Gao J, Zhao S, et al. Achieving consistent image quality and overall radiation dose reduction for coronary CT angiography with body mass index-dependent tube voltage and tube current selection. Clin Radiol 2014; 69: 945-51.
[81]
Yin WH, Lu B, Hou ZH, et al. Detection of coronary artery stenosis with sub-milliSievert radiation dose by prospectively ECG-triggered high-pitch spiral CT angiography and iterative reconstruction. Eur Radiol 2013; 23: 2927-33.
[82]
Zhang LJ, Qi L, Wang J, et al. Feasibility of prospectively ECG-triggered high-pitch coronary CTangiography with 30 mL iodinated contrast agent at 70 kVp: Initial experience. Eur Radiol 2014; 24: 1537-46.
[83]
Zhang LJ, Wang Y, Schoepf UJ, et al. Image quality, radiation dose, and diagnostic accuracy of prospectively ECG-triggered high-pitch coronary CT angiography at 70 kVp in a clinical setting: Comparison with invasive coronary angiography. Eur Radiol 2016; 26: 797-806.
[84]
Stehli J, Fuchs TA, Bull S, et al. Accuracy of coronary CT angiography using a submillisievert fraction of radiation exposure: Comparison with invasive coronary angiography. J Am Coll Cardiol 2014; 64(8): 772-80.
[85]
Hell MM, Bittner D, Schuhbaeck A, et al. Prospectively ECG-triggered high-pitch coronary angiography with third-generation dual-source CT at 70 kVp tube voltage: Feasibility, image quality, radiation dose, and effect of iterative reconstruction. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr 2014; 8: 418-25.
[86]
Gordic S, Desbiolles L, Sedlmair M, et al. Optimizing radiation dose by using advanced modelled iterative reconstruction in high-pitch coronary CT angiography. Eur Radiol 2016; 26: 459-68.
[87]
Neefjes LA, Dharampal AS, Rossi A, et al. Image quality and radiation low-dose scan protocols in dual-source CT coronary angiography: Randomized study. Radiology 2011; 261(3): 779-86.
[88]
Koplay M, Erdogan H, Avci A, et al. Radiation dose and diagnostic accuracy of high-pitch dual-source coronary angiography in the evaluation of coronary artery stenoses. Diagn Interv Imaging 2016; 97: 461-9.
[89]
Pflederer T, Jakstat J, Marwan M, et al. Radiation exposure and image quality in staged low-dose protocols for coronary dual-source CT angiography: A randomized comparison. Eur Radiol 2010; 20: 1197-206.
[90]
Leipsic J, LaBounty TM, Ajlan AM, et al. A prospective randomized trial comparing image quality, study interpretability, and radiation dose of narrow acquisition window with widened acquisition window protocols in prospectively ECG-triggered coronary computed tomography angiography. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr 2013; 7(1): 18-24.
[91]
Duarte R, Fernandez G, Castellon D, Costa JC. Prospective coronary CT angiography 128-MDCT versus retrospective 64-MDCT: Improved image quality and reduced radiation dose. Heart Lung Circ 2011; 20: 119-25.
[92]
Husmann L, Herzog BA, Gaemperli O, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of computed tomography coronary angiography and evaluation of stress-only single-photon emission computed tomography/ computed tomography hybrid imaging: Comparison of prospective electrocardiogram-triggering vs. retrospective gating. Eur Heart J 2009; 30: 600-7.
[93]
Moscariello A, Takx R, Schoepf U, et al. Coronary CT angiography: image quality, diagnostic accuracy, and potential for radiation dose reduction using a novel iterative image reconstruction technique—comparison with traditional filtered back projection. Eur Radiol 2011; 21(10): 2130-8.
[94]
Naoum C, Blanke P, Leipsic J. Iterative reconstruction in cardiac CT. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr 2015; 9(4): 255-63.
[95]
Kordolaimi S, Argentos S, Mademli M, et al. Effect of iDose4 iterative reconstruction algorithm on image quality and radiation exposure in prospective and retrospective electrocardiographically gated coronary computed tomographic angiography. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2014; 38(6): 956-62.
[96]
Cademartiri F, Maffei E, Arcadi T, Catalano O, Midiri M. CT coronary angiography at an ultra-low radiation dose (<0.1 mSv): Feasible and viable in times of constraint on healthcare costs. Eur Radiol 2013; 23: 607-13.
[97]
Schuhbaeck A, Achenbach S, Layritz C, et al. Image quality of ultra-low radiation exposure coronary CT angiography with an effective dose <0.1 mSv using high-pitch spiral acquisition and raw data-based iterative reconstruction. Eur Radiol 2012; 23(3): 597-606.
[98]
Richards C, Dorman S, John P, et al. Low-radiation and high image quality coronary computed tomography angiography in “real-world” unselected patients. World J Radiol 2018; 10(10): 135-42.
[99]
Cesare ED, Gennarelli A, Sibio AD, et al. Assessment of dose exposure and image quality in coronary angiography performed by 640-slice CT: A comparison between adaptive iterative and filtered back-projection algorithm by propensity analysis. Radiol Med 2014; 119(8): 642-9.
[100]
Christner JA, Kofler JM, McCollough CH. Estimating effective dose for CT using dose-length product compared with using organ doses: Consequences of adopting international commission on radiological protection publication 103 or dual-energy scanning. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010; 194(4): 881-9.
[101]
Gosling O, Loader R, Venables P, et al. A comparison of radiation doses between state-of-the-art multislice CT coronary angiography with iterative reconstruction, multislice CT coronary angiography with standard filtered back-projection and invasive diagnostic coronary angiography. Heart 2010; 96: 922-6.
[102]
Cesare ED, Gennarelli A, Sibio AD, et al. Image quality and radiation dose of single heartbeat 640-slice coronary CT angiography: a comparison between patients with chronic atrial fibrillation and subjects in normal sinus rhythm by propensity analysis. Eur J Radiol 2015; 84: 631-6.
Article Metrics
67
5
1
1