Trial reportScientific reports2024
Feasibility study of 'Triple-Low' technique for coronary artery computed tomography angiography (CCTA).
Trial report in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Low- versus high-concentration iodine contrast media for coronary computed tomography angiography and dynamic stress computed tomography perfusion: a study protocol for a prospective randomized trial.Journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2026Article
- Clinical feasibility test of 60 kVp double-low-dose coronary CT angiography with a deep learning reconstruction algorithm.Insights into imaging · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aims to explore the feasibility of applying the "Three-Low" technique (low injection rate, low iodine contrast volume, low radiation dose) in coronary CT angiography (CCTA). We prospectively collected data from 90 patients who underwent CCTA at our hospital between 2021 and 2024. The patients were randomly assigned to either the experimental group (n = 45) or the control group (n = 45). The experimental group parameters were as follows: injection rate of 3.5-4.0 ml/s, iodine contrast volume of 35-40 ml, tube voltage of 100 kVp, and tube current of 250 mA. The control group parameters were: injection rate of 4.5-5.0 ml/s, iodine contrast volume of 45-50 ml, tube voltage of 120 kVp, and tube current of 450 mA. Both groups received a high-concentration, non-ionic, water-soluble contrast agent (Iomeprol, 40 gl/100 ml). The heart rate of all patients was ≤ 70 bpm, and breath-hold scanning was performed after breathing training. The study compared the CT values of the left anterior descending artery, left circumflex artery, right coronary artery, and aorta, as well as background noise, signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), volumetric CT dose index, dose-length product, effective radiation dose, and total iodine dose between the two groups. In the control group, no cases of contrast extravasation occurred, while 6 cases of extravasation were observed in the experimental group (p = 0.026). There was no significant difference between the groups in terms of vascular image quality (mean vascular image quality score: experimental group 4.27 ± 0.62 vs. control group 4.24 ± 0.57, p > 0.05) or vascular motion artifact score (mean vascular motion artifact score: experimental group 4.20 ± 0.59 vs. control group 4.13 ± 0.55, p > 0.05). However, significant differences were found between the experimental and control groups in the CT values of the left anterior descending artery (experimental group: 571.31 ± 49.66 HU vs. control group: 449.20 ± 36.80 HU, p < 0.05), left circumflex artery (experimental group: 570.41 ± 49.98 HU vs. control group: 450.95 ± 39.27 HU, p < 0.05), right coronary artery (experimental group: 584.52 ± 53.70 HU vs. control group: 452.66 ± 40.67 HU, p < 0.05), aorta (experimental group: 624.91 ± 48.99 HU vs. control group: 465.36 ± 34.37 HU, p < 0.05), background noise (experimental group: 24.76 ± 1.97 vs. control group: 19.09 ± 1.69, p < 0.05), SNR (experimental group: 25.30 ± 1.81 vs. control group: 24.47 ± 1.75, p < 0.05), volumetric CT dose index (experimental group: 22.97 ± 1.47 mGy vs. control group: 50.53 ± 4.89 mGy, p < 0.05), dose-length product (experimental group: 363.68 ± 21.45 mGy·cm vs. control group: 782.41 ± 58.20 mGy·cm, p < 0.05), and effective radiation dose (experimental group: 5.09 ± 0.30 mSv vs. control group: 10.95 ± 0.81 mSv, p < 0.05).The results of the Fisher test indicated that the extravasation rate was significantly higher in the high injection rate group compared to the low injection rate group (P = 0.024). The "Three-Low" technique in CCTA imaging effectively reduces the incidence of contrast extravasation caused by high injection rates and decreases the radiation dose, making it a highly feasible option for clinical application and worthy of broader adoption.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.