Key result
Split-bolus CT contrast protocols link to ~92 HU higher RV density versus monophasic injection.
Why the study?
The study sought to compare CT contrast enhancement protocols for optimal cardiac chamber visualization and determine their impact on non-invasive superficial cardiac mapping.
Do split-bolus or pre-bolus contrast enhancement protocols improve visualization of the right heart chambers in patients undergoing CT before arrhythmia ablation?
Observational (n=93)
No
Do split-bolus or pre-bolus contrast enhancement protocols improve visualization of the right heart chambers in patients undergoing CT before arrhythmia ablation?
Split-bolus and pre-bolus contrast enhancement protocols for cardiac CT yield superior right heart visualization compared to standard monophasic protocols, improving pre-procedural planning for arrhythmia ablation.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
May support split-bolus or pre-bolus protocols for pre-ablation CT planning; leaves open impact on ablation outcomes.
Purpose . Comparison of computer tomography (СT) contrast enhancement (CE) protocols for optimal visualization of cardiac chamber, definition it’s influence on results of non-invasive superficial cardiac mapping. Materials and methods. The study included 93 patients with heart rhythm disorders who planned catheter ablation of arrhythmia. Noninvasive cardiac mapping was made for topical diagnostics. It includes multichannel ECG-registration and CT with intravenous СE (1st group monophasic (50 patients), 2nd group split-bolus (18 patients), 3rd group with pre-bolus (25 patients). Qualitative and quantitative (measurement of mean blood attenuation in four chambers, calculation of ventricular-myocardial contrast-to-noise ratio VM-LV и VM-RV for left ventricle (LV) and right ventricle (RV), respectively) parameters were compared between groups. Fusion of ECG and CT data was made semi-automatic with diagnostic complex «Amycard 01К». Results. Regardless of CE technique was noted sufficient and homogeneous contrast attenuation of left atrium (LA) and LV (mean blood attenuation in LA more than 278 HU, LV 250 HU, VM-LV 0,582). Enhancement of right heart was insufficient with monophasic protocol, in most cases the average CT density was lower than 200 HU, VM-RV 0,256. Split-bolus protocol improves visualization of right atrium (RA) and RV (blood density in RA 258HU, RV 227HU, VM-RV 0,541), however there was heterogeneity of RA cavity because of artifacts from superior vena cava (VC) and unenhanced blood from inferior inferior VC. Using of pre-bolus increases contrast ratio between RA myocardium and blood due to increasing CT density of blood in inferior VC (blood density 294 HU). Quality of right ventricle CE was similar to 2nd group (blood density 264 HU, VM-RV 0,565). Conclusion. CE protocols split-bolus and with pre-bolus improve visualization of right ventricle, supporting the high level enhancement of left heart. Protocol with pre-bolus is preferable for exact differentiation of right atrial endocardial contour.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kashtanova et al. (2021) conducted an observational in Heart rhythm disorders planned for catheter ablation (n=93). Split-bolus or pre-bolus CT contrast enhancement protocol vs. Monophasic CT contrast enhancement protocol was evaluated on Mean blood attenuation in the right ventricle (HU) (p=<0.001). Split-bolus and pre-bolus contrast enhancement protocols improved visualization of the right ventricle compared to the monophasic protocol.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: