Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
      • JNMT Supplement
    • Ahead of print
    • Past Issues
    • Continuing Education
    • JNMT Podcast
    • SNMMI Annual Meeting Abstracts
  • Subscriptions
    • Subscribers
    • Rates
    • Journal Claims
    • Institutional and Non-member
  • Authors
    • Submit to JNMT
    • Information for Authors
    • Assignment of Copyright
    • AQARA Requirements
  • Info
    • Reviewers
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
    • Corporate & Special Sales
  • About
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Contact Information
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • SNMMI Journals
  • SNMMI
    • JNMT
    • JNM
    • SNMMI Journals
    • SNMMI

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology
  • SNMMI
    • JNMT
    • JNM
    • SNMMI Journals
    • SNMMI
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Past Issues
    • Continuing Education
    • JNMT Podcast
    • SNMMI Annual Meeting Abstracts
  • Subscriptions
    • Subscribers
    • Rates
    • Journal Claims
    • Institutional and Non-member
  • Authors
    • Submit to JNMT
    • Information for Authors
    • Assignment of Copyright
    • AQARA Requirements
  • Info
    • Reviewers
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
    • Corporate & Special Sales
  • About
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Contact Information
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • SNMMI Journals
  • Watch or Listen to JNMT Podcast
  • Visit SNMMI on Facebook
  • Join SNMMI on LinkedIn
  • Follow SNMMI on Twitter
  • Subscribe to JNMT RSS feeds
Research ArticleQuality & Practice Management

Use of Advanced CT Technology to Evaluate Left Atrial Indices in Patients with a High Heart Rate or with Heart Rate Variability: The Converge Registry

Lavanya Cherukuri, Divya Birudaraju, April Kinninger, Bhanu T. Chaganti, Sivakrishna Pidikiti, Ryan G. Pozon, Anne Concepcion G. Pozon, Suvasini Lakshmanan, Suraj Dahal, Sajad Hamal, Ferdinand Flores, Dialing Christopher, Daniele Andreini, Gianluca Pontone, Edoardo Conte, Rine Nakanishi, Rachael O’Rourke, Christian Hamilton-Craig, Khurram Nasir, Sion K. Roy, Song Shou Mao and Matthew J. Budoff
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology March 2021, 49 (1) 65-69; DOI: https://doi.org/10.2967/jnmt.120.253781
Lavanya Cherukuri
1Lundquist Institute for Biomedical Innovation, Harbor UCLA Medical Center, Torrance, California
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Divya Birudaraju
1Lundquist Institute for Biomedical Innovation, Harbor UCLA Medical Center, Torrance, California
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
April Kinninger
1Lundquist Institute for Biomedical Innovation, Harbor UCLA Medical Center, Torrance, California
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Bhanu T. Chaganti
2Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, El Paso, Texas
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Sivakrishna Pidikiti
1Lundquist Institute for Biomedical Innovation, Harbor UCLA Medical Center, Torrance, California
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ryan G. Pozon
1Lundquist Institute for Biomedical Innovation, Harbor UCLA Medical Center, Torrance, California
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Anne Concepcion G. Pozon
1Lundquist Institute for Biomedical Innovation, Harbor UCLA Medical Center, Torrance, California
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Suvasini Lakshmanan
1Lundquist Institute for Biomedical Innovation, Harbor UCLA Medical Center, Torrance, California
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Suraj Dahal
1Lundquist Institute for Biomedical Innovation, Harbor UCLA Medical Center, Torrance, California
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Sajad Hamal
1Lundquist Institute for Biomedical Innovation, Harbor UCLA Medical Center, Torrance, California
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ferdinand Flores
1Lundquist Institute for Biomedical Innovation, Harbor UCLA Medical Center, Torrance, California
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Dialing Christopher
1Lundquist Institute for Biomedical Innovation, Harbor UCLA Medical Center, Torrance, California
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Daniele Andreini
3Centro Cardiologico Monzino, IRCCS, Milan, Italy
4Department of Clinical Sciences and Community Health, Cardiovascular Section, University of Milan, Milan, Italy
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Gianluca Pontone
3Centro Cardiologico Monzino, IRCCS, Milan, Italy
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Edoardo Conte
3Centro Cardiologico Monzino, IRCCS, Milan, Italy
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Rine Nakanishi
5Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Toho University Graduate School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Rachael O’Rourke
6Department of Medical Imaging, Prince Charles Hospital, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia; and
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Christian Hamilton-Craig
6Department of Medical Imaging, Prince Charles Hospital, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia; and
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Khurram Nasir
7Baptist Heart Medical Group, Miami, Florida
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Sion K. Roy
1Lundquist Institute for Biomedical Innovation, Harbor UCLA Medical Center, Torrance, California
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Song Shou Mao
1Lundquist Institute for Biomedical Innovation, Harbor UCLA Medical Center, Torrance, California
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Matthew J. Budoff
1Lundquist Institute for Biomedical Innovation, Harbor UCLA Medical Center, Torrance, California
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

We intended to assess the ability of current-generation 256-slice coronary CT angiography (CCTA) to measure left atrial volume (LAV), comparing patients with a high heart rate (HiHR) of at least 70 bpm and patients with heart rate variability such as atrial fibrillation (AFib). Methods: Using the prospective Converge Registry of patients undergoing 256-detector CCTA on a Revolution scanner, we enrolled 121 HiHR patients (74 men; mean age, 62.7 ± 12.5 y) and 102 AFib patients (72 men; mean age, 60.5 ± 11.0 y) after obtaining informed consent. Quantitative data analysis of LAV was performed using automated methods, and end-systolic phases were chosen for measurements from CCTA. A Student t test, Wilcoxon rank-sum test, or χ2 test assessed baseline parameters. Univariate and multivariate linear regression analysis was used to assess LAV and LAV index (LAVI) while adjusting potentially confounding variables. Results: Mean LAV was significantly higher in AFib subjects (148.6 ± 57.2 mL) than in HiHR subjects (102.1 ± 36.5 mL) (P < 0.0001). Similarly, mean LAVI was significantly higher in AFib subjects (72.4 ± 28.1 mL/m2) than in HiHR subjects (51.5 ± 19.0 mL/m2) (P < 0.0001). After adjusting for age, body mass index, sex, diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and smoking, subjects with AFib had, on average, LAV measures higher by 41.2 ± 6.7 mL and LAVI values higher by 23.1 ± 3.4 mL/m2 (P < 0.0001). Conclusion: Misalignment and motion artifacts in CCTA images affect diagnostic CT performance, especially in patients with elevated heart rates or profound arrhythmia. However, the new-generation Revolution CCTA provides detailed information on left-atrium-complex morphology and function, in addition to coronary anatomy, in HiHR and AFib patients without additional radiation, scanning, or contrast requirements.

  • left atrial volume
  • heart rate variability
  • high heart rate
  • arrhythmia
  • motion artifacts

CT technology has significantly improved since its introduction into clinical practice in 1972 (1). Coronary CT angiography (CCTA) is a rapidly evolving, noninvasive imaging technique to evaluate the presence, extent, and severity of coronary artery disease (2). In cardiac CT imaging modalities such as coronary artery calcium scoring and CCTA, the patient’s high, irregular, or high and irregular heart rate variation plays an important role in imaging quality. Prescan β-blockers are commonly administered to achieve a resting heart rate of less than 65 bpm, thereby reducing the number of motion artifacts. However, previous studies have demonstrated a significant negative correlation between mean heart rate and image quality (r = 0.80, P < 0.001) (3). During the scanning, a significant variation in heart rate (e.g., from 41 to 100 bpm, equivalent to an R–R interval ranging from 1,463 to 600 ms) results in improper recording of electrocardiogram-gated data and severe discontinuities in the reconstructed cardiac images, especially in individuals with atrial fibrillation (AFib) or other arrhythmia (4). The temporal window suited for imaging (e.g., mid- to end-diastole) is shortened by the increased motion speed of coronary vessels in high-heart-rate (HiHR) patients, whereas the temporal variability of the diastolic phase is increased between contiguous cardiac cycles in individuals with AFib. This inaccurate locating of temporal windows creates motion artifacts and prevents adequate visualization and assessment of coronary vessels. However, progressive improvements in the temporal resolution and electrocardiogram-gated capability of new-generation CT scanners minimize motion-related imaging artifacts and may reduce the need for prescan β-blockers (5,6). Electrocardiogram gating with tube-current-modulation capability automatically acquires images at the diastolic phase for lower heart rates, as well as acquiring images at both the systolic and the diastolic phases for higher heart rates.

Recent advancements in cardiovascular imaging modalities and their clinical application have contributed significantly to the assessment of left-atrium-complex morphology and function and their interrelationship with the left ventricle, aorta, and pulmonary artery along the coronary arteries. Previous studies have shown that 3-dimensional echocardiography has better accuracy and reproducibility than 2-dimensional echocardiography; however, 3-dimensional echocardiography is not widely used in clinical practice (5). The echocardiographic parameters of the left atrium include left atrial anteroposterior diameter, left atrial area, and left atrial volume (LAV). These parameters are more globally descriptive, and they remain normal in the early phases of disease. Furthermore, LAV measured by echocardiograms is highly dependent on image quality and has been shown to be underestimated when compared with LAV measured by contrast-enhanced cardiac CT or cardiac MRI (6).

The aim of the present study was to investigate the ability of a current-generation coronary CT angiography (CCTA) scanner to measure LAV in patients with a high and irregular heart rate.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Study Population

Using the prospective Converge Registry of patients undergoing 256-detector CCTA on the Revolution scanner (GE Healthcare), we identified 121 HiHR patients with sinus rhythm (74 men [71%]; mean age, 62.7 ± 12.5 y) and 102 patients with AFib (72 men [61%]; mean age, 60.5 ± 11.0 y). In total, 223 eligible participants (146 men [65%]; mean age, 61.7 ± 11.9 y), with an age of 25–80 y, a weight of less than 136 kg (300 lb), a heart rate of at least 70 bpm, and a clinical indication for CCTA, were enrolled after providing written informed consent using a form that was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Lundquist Institute. The study was conducted according to the principles expressed in the Declaration of Helsinki.

We excluded patients with insufficient CCTA image quality (n = 4) or a known history of valvular diseases (n = 1), cancer (n = 1), chronic kidney disease (estimated glomerular filtration rate < 60 mL/min/1.73 m2 within 30 d of the CT) (n = 3), or intravenous contrast allergy (n = 2).

Evaluation of Cardiovascular Risk Factors

Before CCTA, demographics were obtained for each participant, along with blood pressure, height, weight and a focused history of cardiovascular risk factors. Clinical history was ascertained through a patient interview and a clinical questionnaire. Previous history of hypertension, diabetes mellitus, or hyperlipidemia was determined, along with the medications targeted at managing them. Current cigarette smokers or those who quit smoking within 3 mo of testing were recorded as having a positive smoking history. A clinically significant family history of coronary artery disease was defined as that occurring in a female relative younger than 65 y or a male relative younger than 55 y.

CCTA Scan and Image Acquisition

Both contrast and non-contrast scans were performed to evaluate the extent of coronary artery calcium and coronary plaque volume, as previously published (7–10). Prescan oral metoprolol was used to achieve a resting heart rate of less than 65 bpm, and we enrolled those individuals whose heart rate was at least 70 bpm even after β-blockade therapy. Sublingual nitroglycerin, 0.4 mg, was administered immediately before contrast injection. The contrast medium (Omnipaque 350; GE Healthcare) was injected at a rate of 5.0 mL/s using a triple-phase protocol: 60 mL of contrast followed by 20 mL of contrast plus 30 mL of saline followed by a 50-mL saline flush. For the contrast-enhanced CCTA scan, we used electrocardiogram gating, with the scan beginning 20 mm above the level of the left main artery and continuing to 20 mm below the inferior myocardial apex. The scan parameters were a rotation speed of 0.28 s/rotation (with no table motion), 256-slice CT × 0.625-mm collimation, tube voltage of 120 kVp, and an effective amperage of 122–740 mA based on the body mass index of the patient, which was automatically determined by the system as previously published (7–10). The autogating capability of the Revolution scanner automatically acquires the diastolic phase for lower heart rates and both the systolic and the diastolic phases for higher heart rates. Each scan was done in a single-beat acquisition within 1 cardiac cycle, regardless of heart rate. After scan completion, multiphasic reconstruction of the CCTA scans was performed, with reconstructed images from 70% to 80% by 5% increments and from 5% to 95% by 10% increments.

Before CCTA, a prospective non-contrast coronary calcium scan was performed. For quantitative assessment of coronary artery calcium, the Agatston score was calculated using a 3‐mm-thick CT slice and a detection threshold of at least 130 HU involving at least a 1-mm2 area per lesion (3 pixels) (11).

LAV Analysis

Quantitative data analyses were performed using automated methods on an Advantage Workstation (version 4.6; GE Healthcare) with software that used a Hounsfield unit–based technique to detect the endocardial border. Volumes were calculated using the Simpson method (12). Images were reconstructed with a 1.25-mm slice thickness. The end-systolic phases were chosen for measurements of LAV. The left atrial appendage and pulmonary veins were not included in the LAV measurement. After adjustment for body surface area, the LAV index (LAVI) was estimated using the formula of Du Bois and Du Bois (13).

Statistical Analysis

Continuous variables are expressed as mean ± SD, whereas categoric variables are stated as count and percentage. A Student t test, Wilcoxon rank-sum test, or χ2 test assessed differences in all baseline parameters between AFib and HiHR subjects. Univariate and multivariate linear regression analysis was used to examine the relationship between LAV and LAVI while adjusting for potentially confounding variables. A P value of less than 0.05 was considered significant. SAS software (version 9.4) performed all statistical analyses.

RESULTS

Baseline demographics and clinical characteristics are summarized in Table 1. Age, sex, smoking use, and hyperlipidemia did not significantly differ between the AFib and HiHR groups, but ethnicity, body mass index, body surface area, self-reported chest pain, diabetes mellitus, and hypertension did.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 1

Baseline Characteristics

Mean LAV was significantly higher in AFib subjects (148.6 ± 57.2 mL) than in HiHR subjects (102.1 ± 36.5 mL) (P < 0.0001). Similarly, mean LAVI was significantly higher in AFib subjects (72.4 ± 28.1 mL/m2) than in HiHR subjects (51.5 ± 19.0 mL/m2) (P < 0.0001). After adjusting for age, body mass index, sex, diabetic status, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, history of myocardial infarction, and smoking habits, subjects with AFib had, on average, an LAV higher by 41.2 ± 6.7 mL and an LAVI higher by 23.1 ± 3.4 mL/m2 (P < 0.0001) (Table 2).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 2

Relationship Between Left Atrial Measurements and HiHR or AFib Subjects

DISCUSSION

This study was, to the best of our knowledge, the first to assess the ability of the 256-slice Revolution CT scanner to measure LAV in patients with high and irregular heart rates. We found significantly higher LAV measurements among individuals with AFib than in HiHR patients (P < 0.0001).

Heart rate variability plays a vital role in the diagnostic accuracy of CCTA, and the interexamination heart rate variability results in an inaccurate temporal window of R–R intervals, impairing the electrocardiogram-gated reconstruction image technique. Leschka et al. (14) showed that heart rate variability positively correlated with image quality and that the diagnostic accuracy of CCTA was reduced with increasing heart rate variability (r = 0.61, P < 0.01). Brodoefel et al. reported a negative correlation between heart rate variability and image quality for all coronary segments and individual coronary arteries, whereas heart rate variability did not affect the diagnostic specificity of dual-source CCTA (15). Ropers et al. (16) demonstrated that the diagnostic accuracy of CCTA was not influenced by heart rate. Furthermore, Zhang et al. (17) concluded that average heart rate had no effect on the diagnostic accuracy of cardiac CT; whole-heart-rate variability was found to have a significant effect on the sensitivity and specificity of CCTA. Misalignment and motion artifacts in CTA images affect the CT diagnostic performance, especially in patients with elevated heart rates or profound arrhythmia. In the past few years, advances in software (e.g., automatic recognition and editing of heart rhythm irregularities) and scanner technology (e.g., faster rotation times or increased temporal resolution) have allowed for effective and efficient imaging to provide accurate measurements of cardiac volumes and function, compared with prior generations of CCTA devices. All these previous studies assessed the diagnostic accuracy and image quality of cardiac CT for coronary arteries. In the present study, we evaluated the ability of cardiac CT to measure LAV in individuals with a variable heart rate.

CCTA provides full volumetric data on all 4 cardiac chambers, making LAV measurement possible without the need for any geometric assumption about the left atrial parameters (18). The determination of left atrial function simultaneously with left ventricle function, aortic function, and pulmonary artery hemodynamics will provide a better understanding of the role of the left atrium in cardiovascular homeostasis in healthy subjects and patients with cardiovascular diseases. CCTA measures the LAV more accurately than cardiac MR does (19). Because of the high contrast-to-noise ratio, CCTA provides high image quality with spatial temporal resolution, excellent endocardial border definition, and software-based motion correction (20). The iterative reconstruction ability of new-generation CT scanners reduces image noise without compromising diagnostic quality, thus permitting a significant reduction in effective radiation dose. Andreini et al. (21) reported a 98.5% diagnostic accuracy for a Revolution scanner equipped with 0.23-mm spatial resolution, a 0.28-s gantry rotation time, and an intracycle motion correction algorithm, in the detection of coronary artery disease in AFib patients with a mean heart rate of 83 bpm. We used similar parameters for the Revolution scanner to measure LAV in our study population. Additionally, a previous study demonstrated that the new-generation Revolution scanner obtains better-quality images at a lower radiation than is possible with the Aquilion ONE ViSION CT scanner (Toshiba) (1.50 + 0.75 mSv vs. 1.9 mSv; interquartile range, 1.7–2.7 mSv; P = 0.01) (20).

Previous studies have shown that LAV measurements are more accurate than linear-dimension measurements in evaluating asymmetric left atrial remodeling and are considered a strong predictor of cardiovascular disease (22). Leschka et al. (23) demonstrated that dual-source CCTA provides the best image quality at diastole (70% of the R–R interval) at various heart rates (35–117 bpm). Walker et al. (24) reported normal LAVI values of 20.8 to 49.8 mL/m2 for cardiac CT at the mid-diastolic phase at slow and regular heart rates (LAV was reported as 37.7–98.7 mL), and Osawa et al. (25) reported LAVI values of 35.2 ± 10.9 mL/m2 in young adults with suspected coronary artery disease. These studies excluded the AFib population, and moreover, the mean heart rate of their study populations was less than approximately 70 bpm. The mid–diastolic-phase mean values of LAV (HiHR, 102.1 + 36.5 mL; AFib, 148.6 + 57.2 mL) and LAVI (HiHR, 51 + 19.0 mL/m2; AFib, 72.4 + 28.1 mL/m2) in our study population were slightly larger, possibly because our HiHR and AFib population had documented coronary artery disease.

Left atrial enlargement has emerged as a strong predictor of common cardiovascular disease outcomes such as AFib, stroke, congestive heart failure, and cardiovascular death (26). Left atrial dilation promotes stasis of blood, which in turn increases the risk of thrombus formation and the potential for embolization. Several studies have shown the clinical usefulness of Doppler-derived left ventricular diastolic function in predicting cardiovascular mortality and morbidity (27,28). However, due to the significant left ventricle measurements, attention was drawn toward diastolic dysfunction markers, such as LAV. Tsang et al. demonstrated a strong association between LAV and left ventricular diastolic dysfunction (26). The Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation study (29) and the Cardiovascular Health Study (30) reported a significant association between stroke and left atrial dimensions. Early detection of left atrial dysfunction is proposed to provide insight into the pathophysiology and clinical management of several diseases in which left atrial dysfunction may be present.

The current study had several limitations. First, the LAV measured from CCTA was not compared with simultaneous echocardiography or MRI or with previous-generation CT scanners. Second, left ventricular function, aortic function, and pulmonary artery hemodynamics were not determined along with LAV. Third, we did not assess any follow-up measurements of LAV. Fourth, we did not show the relationship between LAV and conventional risk factors. Additional research is necessary to determine the importance of volumetric LAV in predicting mortality and morbidity in high-risk individuals such as those with AFib, stroke, congestive heart failure, or cardiovascular death.

CONCLUSION

Misalignment and motion artifacts in CCTA images affect diagnostic CT performance, especially in patients with elevated heart rates or profound arrhythmia. However, the new-generation Revolution CCTA provides detailed information on left-atrium-complex morphology and function, in addition to coronary anatomy, in HiHR and AFib patients without additional radiation, scanning, or contrast requirements.

DISCLOSURE

Matthew Budoff performs work for the National Institutes of Health and GE Healthcare. The study was funded by GE Healthcare. No other potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

Footnotes

  • Published online Nov. 20, 2020.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Sharma RK,
    2. Voelker DJ,
    3. Sharma RK,
    4. et al
    . Coronary computed tomographic angiography (CCTA) in community hospitals: “current and emerging role.” Vasc Health Risk Manag. 2010;6:307–316.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    1. Budoff MJ,
    2. Dowe D,
    3. Jollis JG,
    4. et al
    . Diagnostic performance of 64-multidetector row coronary computed tomographic angiography for evaluation of coronary artery stenosis in individuals without known coronary artery disease: results from the prospective multicenter ACCURACY (Assessment by Coronary Computed Tomographic Angiography of Individuals Undergoing Invasive Coronary Angiography) trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008;52:1724–1732.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  3. 3.↵
    1. Hoffmann MHK,
    2. Shi H,
    3. Manzke R,
    4. et al
    . Noninvasive coronary angiography with 16-detector row CT: effect of heart rate. Radiology. 2005;234:86–97.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    1. Zhang J,
    2. Fletcher JG,
    3. Scott Harmsen W,
    4. et al
    . Analysis of heart rate and heart rate variation during cardiac CT examinations. Acad Radiol. 2008;15:40–48.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    1. Perez de Isla L,
    2. Feltes G,
    3. Moreno J,
    4. et al
    . Quantification of left atrial volumes using three-dimensional wall motion tracking echocardiographic technology: comparison with cardiac magnetic resonance. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2014;15:793–799.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    1. Cardona A,
    2. Trovato V,
    3. Nagaraja HN,
    4. Raman SV,
    5. Harfi TT
    . Left atrial volume quantification using coronary calcium score scan: feasibility, reliability and reproducibility analysis of a standardized approach. Int J Cardiol Heart Vasc. 2019;23:100351.
    OpenUrl
  7. 7.↵
    1. Hamal S,
    2. Cherukuri L,
    3. Shaikh K,
    4. et al
    . Effect of semaglutide on coronary atherosclerosis progression in patients with type II diabetes: rationale and design of the semaglutide treatment on coronary progression trial. Coron Artery Dis. 2020;31:306–314.
    OpenUrl
  8. 8.
    1. Birudaraju D,
    2. Cherukuri L,
    3. Kinninger A,
    4. et al
    . Relationship between cardio-ankle vascular index and obstructive coronary artery disease. Coron Artery Dis. 2020;31:550–555.
    OpenUrl
  9. 9.
    1. Lakshmanan S,
    2. Shekar C,
    3. Kinninger A,
    4. et al
    . Association of high-density lipoprotein levels with baseline coronary plaque volumes by coronary CTA in the EVAPORATE trial. Atherosclerosis. 2020;305:34–41.
    OpenUrl
  10. 10.↵
    1. Lakshmanan S,
    2. Shekar C,
    3. Kinninger A,
    4. et al
    . Association of flow mediated vasodilation and burden of subclinical atherosclerosis by coronary CTA. Atherosclerosis. 2020;302:15–19.
    OpenUrl
  11. 11.↵
    1. Rumberger JA,
    2. Brundage BH,
    3. Rader DJ,
    4. Kondos G
    . Electron beam computed tomographic coronary calcium scanning: a review and guidelines for use in asymptomatic persons. Mayo Clin Proc. 1999;74:243–252.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. 12.↵
    1. Gupta M,
    2. Hacioglu Y,
    3. Kadakia J,
    4. et al
    . Left ventricular volume: an optimal parameter to detect systolic dysfunction on prospectively triggered 64-multidetector row computed tomography: another step towards reducing radiation exposure. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2011;27:1015–1023.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  13. 13.↵
    1. Du Bois D,
    2. Du Bois EF
    . A formula to estimate the approximate surface area if height and weight be known. Nutrition. 1989;5:303–311.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  14. 14.↵
    1. Leschka S,
    2. Scheffel H,
    3. Husmann L,
    4. et al
    . Effect of decrease in heart rate variability on the diagnostic accuracy of 64-MDCT coronary angiography. AJR. 2008;190:1583–1590.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. 15.↵
    1. Brodoefel H,
    2. Burgstahler C,
    3. Tsiflikas I,
    4. et al
    . Dual-source CT: effect of heart rate, heart rate variability, and calcification on image quality and diagnostic accuracy. Radiology. 2008;247:346–355.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. 16.↵
    1. Ropers U,
    2. Ropers D,
    3. Pflederer T,
    4. et al
    . Influence of heart rate on the diagnostic accuracy of dual-source computed tomography coronary angiography. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007;50:2393–2398.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  17. 17.↵
    1. Zhang L-J,
    2. Wu S-Y,
    3. Wang J,
    4. et al
    . Diagnostic accuracy of dual-source CT coronary angiography: the effect of average heart rate, heart rate variability, and calcium score in a clinical perspective. Acta Radiol. 2010;51:727–740.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. 18.↵
    1. Taylor AJ,
    2. Cerqueira M,
    3. Hodgson JM,
    4. et al
    . ACCF/SCCT/ACR/AHA/ASE/ASNC/NASCI/SCAI/SCMR 2010 appropriate use criteria for cardiac computed tomography: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Appropriate Use Criteria Task Force, the Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, the American College of Radiology, the American Heart Association, the American Society of Echocardiography, the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, the North American Society for Cardiovascular Imaging, the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010;56:1864–1894.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  19. 19.↵
    1. Agner BFR,
    2. Kühl JT,
    3. Linde JJ,
    4. et al
    . Assessment of left atrial volume and function in patients with permanent atrial fibrillation: comparison of cardiac magnetic resonance imaging, 320-slice multi-detector computed tomography, and transthoracic echocardiography. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2014;15:532–540.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. 20.↵
    1. Patel N,
    2. Li D,
    3. Nakanishi R,
    4. et al
    . Comparison of whole heart computed tomography scanners for image quality lower radiation dosing in coronary computed tomography angiography: the CONVERGE registry. Acad Radiol. 2019;26:1443–1449.
    OpenUrl
  21. 21.↵
    1. Andreini D,
    2. Pontone G,
    3. Mushtaq S,
    4. et al
    . Atrial fibrillation: diagnostic accuracy of coronary CT angiography performed with a whole-heart 230-µm spatial resolution CT scanner. Radiology. 2017;284:676–684.
    OpenUrl
  22. 22.↵
    1. Lang RM,
    2. Bierig M,
    3. Devereux RB,
    4. et al
    . Recommendations for chamber quantification. Eur J Echocardiogr. 2006;7:79–108.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. 23.↵
    1. Leschka S,
    2. Scheffel H,
    3. Desbiolles L,
    4. et al
    . Image quality and reconstruction intervals of dual-source CT coronary angiography: recommendations for ECG-pulsing windowing. Invest Radiol. 2007;42:543–549.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. 24.↵
    1. Walker JR,
    2. Abadi S,
    3. Solomonica A,
    4. et al
    . Left-sided cardiac chamber evaluation using single-phase mid-diastolic coronary computed tomography angiography: derivation of normal values and comparison with conventional end-diastolic and end-systolic phases. Eur Radiol. 2016;26:3626–3634.
    OpenUrl
  25. 25.↵
    1. Osawa K,
    2. Nakanishi R,
    3. Miyoshi T,
    4. et al
    . Correlation of arterial stiffness with left atrial volume index and left ventricular mass index in young adults: evaluation by coronary computed tomography angiography. Heart Lung Circ. 2019;28:932–938.
    OpenUrl
  26. 26.↵
    1. Tsang TSM,
    2. Barnes ME,
    3. Gersh BJ,
    4. Bailey KR,
    5. Seward JB
    . Left atrial volume as a morphophysiologic expression of left ventricular diastolic dysfunction and relation to cardiovascular risk burden. Am J Cardiol. 2002;90:1284–1289.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. 27.↵
    1. Giannuzzi P,
    2. Temporelli PL,
    3. Bosimini E,
    4. et al
    . Independent and incremental prognostic value of Doppler-derived mitral deceleration time of early filling in both symptomatic and asymptomatic patients with left ventricular dysfunction. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1996;28:383–390.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  28. 28.↵
    1. Pinamonti B,
    2. Di Lenarda A,
    3. Sinagra G,
    4. Camerini F
    . Restrictive left ventricular filling pattern in dilated cardiomyopathy assessed by Doppler echocardiography: clinical, echocardiographic and hemodynamic correlations and prognostic implications. Heart Muscle Disease Study Group. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1993;22:808–815.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  29. 29.↵
    Predictors of thromboembolism in atrial fibrillation: II. Echocardiographic features of patients at risk. The Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation Investigators. Ann Intern Med. 1992;116:6–12.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. 30.↵
    1. Kamel H,
    2. Bartz TM,
    3. Elkind MSV,
    4. et al
    . Atrial cardiopathy and the risk of ischemic stroke in the CHS (cardiovascular health study). Stroke. 2018;49:980–986.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  • Received for publication July 16, 2020.
  • Accepted for publication September 9, 2020.
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology: 49 (1)
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology
Vol. 49, Issue 1
March 1, 2021
  • Table of Contents
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Use of Advanced CT Technology to Evaluate Left Atrial Indices in Patients with a High Heart Rate or with Heart Rate Variability: The Converge Registry
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology web site.
Citation Tools
Use of Advanced CT Technology to Evaluate Left Atrial Indices in Patients with a High Heart Rate or with Heart Rate Variability: The Converge Registry
Lavanya Cherukuri, Divya Birudaraju, April Kinninger, Bhanu T. Chaganti, Sivakrishna Pidikiti, Ryan G. Pozon, Anne Concepcion G. Pozon, Suvasini Lakshmanan, Suraj Dahal, Sajad Hamal, Ferdinand Flores, Dialing Christopher, Daniele Andreini, Gianluca Pontone, Edoardo Conte, Rine Nakanishi, Rachael O’Rourke, Christian Hamilton-Craig, Khurram Nasir, Sion K. Roy, Song Shou Mao, Matthew J. Budoff
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology Mar 2021, 49 (1) 65-69; DOI: 10.2967/jnmt.120.253781

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Use of Advanced CT Technology to Evaluate Left Atrial Indices in Patients with a High Heart Rate or with Heart Rate Variability: The Converge Registry
Lavanya Cherukuri, Divya Birudaraju, April Kinninger, Bhanu T. Chaganti, Sivakrishna Pidikiti, Ryan G. Pozon, Anne Concepcion G. Pozon, Suvasini Lakshmanan, Suraj Dahal, Sajad Hamal, Ferdinand Flores, Dialing Christopher, Daniele Andreini, Gianluca Pontone, Edoardo Conte, Rine Nakanishi, Rachael O’Rourke, Christian Hamilton-Craig, Khurram Nasir, Sion K. Roy, Song Shou Mao, Matthew J. Budoff
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology Mar 2021, 49 (1) 65-69; DOI: 10.2967/jnmt.120.253781
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • MATERIALS AND METHODS
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • CONCLUSION
    • DISCLOSURE
    • Footnotes
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Effect of PSMA PET/CT on the Use of Bone Scintigraphy for Prostate Cancer at a University Hospital System
  • 90Y SIR-Spheres Activity Measurement with New SIROS D-Vial Delivery Kit
  • Decay Correction for Quantitative Myocardial PET Perfusion in Established PET Scanners: A Potentially Overlooked Source of Errors
Show more Quality & Practice Management

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • left atrial volume
  • heart rate variability
  • high heart rate
  • arrhythmia
  • motion artifacts
SNMMI

© 2025 SNMMI

Powered by HighWire