Submitted: 10 Feb 2023
Accepted: 27 Jan 2024
ePublished: 13 Mar 2024
EndNote EndNote

(Enw Format - Win & Mac)

BibTeX BibTeX

(Bib Format - Win & Mac)

Bookends Bookends

(Ris Format - Mac only)

EasyBib EasyBib

(Ris Format - Win & Mac)

Medlars Medlars

(Txt Format - Win & Mac)

Mendeley Web Mendeley Web
Mendeley Mendeley

(Ris Format - Win & Mac)

Papers Papers

(Ris Format - Win & Mac)

ProCite ProCite

(Ris Format - Win & Mac)

Reference Manager Reference Manager

(Ris Format - Win only)

Refworks Refworks

(Refworks Format - Win & Mac)

Zotero Zotero

(Ris Format - Firefox Plugin)

J Cardiovasc Thorac Res. 2024;16(1): 15-20.
doi: 10.34172/jcvtr.31736
PMID: 38584662
PMCID: PMC10997979
  Abstract View: 279
  PDF Download: 255

Original Article

Low-dose, high-pitch, spiral (FLASH) mode versus conventional sequential method for coronary artery calcium scoring: A derivation-validation study

Niraj Nirmal Pandey ORCID logo, Sayannika Chakraborty, Mansi Verma, Priya Jagia* ORCID logo

1 Department of Cardiovascular Radiology & Endovascular Interventions, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India
*Corresponding Author: Priya Jagia, Email: drpjagia@yahoo.com


Introduction: The present study sought to compare the diagnostic accuracy and radiation dose of ECG-gated, ultra-fast, low-dose, high-pitch, spiral (FLASH) mode versus conventional, ECG-gated, sequential coronary artery calcium (CAC) scoring in patients with suspected coronary artery disease (CAD).

Methods: The study included 120 patients who underwent both conventional scanning and FLASH mode scanning and were subdivided into derivation and validation cohorts. In the conventional sequential (step-and-shoot) protocol, prospective ECG-gated, non-contrast acquisition was performed at 70% of R-R interval. The spiral (FLASH) mode utilized a high-pitch and high-speed gantry rotation scanning mode where acquisition of the entire heart was done within a single cardiac cycle with prospective ECG-gating at 70% of R-R interval.

Results: Correlation between CAC scores derived from conventional (cCAC) and FLASH mode (fCAC) in derivation cohort was excellent (r=0.99; P<0.001). A linear regression model was used to develop a formula for deriving the estimated CAC score (eCAC) from fCAC (eCAC=0.978 x fCAC). In validation cohort, eCAC showed excellent agreement with cCAC (ICC=0.9983; 95%CI: 0.9972 - 0.9990). Excellent agreement for risk classification (weighted kappa=0.93898; 95%CI: 0.86833 - 1.0000) was observed with 95% (57/60) scores falling within the same risk category. Effective dose was significantly lower in FLASH mode (conventional, 0.58±0.21 mSv vs. FLASH, 0.34±0.12 mSv; P<0.0001).

Conclusion: CAC scoring using FLASH mode is feasible with high accuracy and shows excellent agreement with conventional CAC scores at significantly reduced radiation doses.

First Name
Last Name
Email Address
Security code

Abstract View: 280

Your browser does not support the canvas element.

PDF Download: 255

Your browser does not support the canvas element.