ライフサイエンスコーパス: electron beam CT

1 2 years) underwent multi-detector row CT and electron-beam CT.

2 olled; 282 of them were found to have CAC at electron-beam CT and underwent repeat scanning to measur

3 r the quantity of CAC with dual scan runs at electron-beam CT.

4 antage over currently commercially available electron-beam CT systems in CAC detection and quantifica

5 r, mean percent absolute differences between electron-beam CT and multi-detector row CT scores ranged

6 ic for coronary heart disease underwent both electron-beam CT and subsecond spiral CT.

7 enal artery stenosis) were studied with both electron-beam CT and 64-section multidetector CT at 1-we

8 k race, male sex, coronary artery calcium by electron beam CT, a composite marker of congestive heart

9 Coronary artery calcium detected by electron-beam CT is a sensitive but not a specific indic

10 e changes can be determined noninvasively by electron-beam CT and quantified with use of a calcium-vo

11 ning test for coronary artery disease (CAD), electron beam CT scanning remains controversial.

12 underwent risk-factor assessment and cardiac electron-beam CT (EBCT) scanning and were followed up fo

13 ons, although they were helpful in conveying electron-beam CT findings to referring cardiologists and

14 triggered dynamic contrast material-enhanced electron-beam CT studies.

15 Overall test parameters for electron-beam CT and angiography to characterize pulmona

16 data for comparison with those obtained from electron-beam CT.

17 nary arterial calcium better than does gated electron-beam CT.

18 that market forces may increase interest in electron-beam CT beyond what is justified by its potenti

19 f 40% rather than 80% of the R-R interval in electron-beam CT calcium studies.

20 As the availability of electron-beam CT increases, it is appropriate to questio

21 propriate indications for and limitations of electron-beam CT.

22 he short-term variation during 30 minutes of electron-beam CT measurements was assessed in nine addit

23 inated from analysis, overall sensitivity of electron-beam CT for hemodynamically significant stenose

24 Two sets of electron-beam CT scans were obtained in patients with co

25 The sensitivity and specificity of electron-beam CT in detecting CAC were 66.1% and 80.0%,

26 All studies of electron-beam CT in symptomatic and asymptomatic patient

27 Until then, the use of electron-beam CT, like that of all tests in medicine, sh

28 ase with coronary artery calcium detected on electron-beam CT were compared.

29 ing cholesterol-year score, calcium score on electron-beam CT (EBCT), and size of Achilles tendon xan

30 s associated with a greater calcium score on electron-beam CT (P=0.02).

31 Data from reconstructed electron-beam CT images and cineangiocardiograms were re

32 their primary care physicians for screening electron-beam CT.

33 ssion of coronary arterial disease on serial electron-beam CT studies.

34 The electron beam CT coronary calcium score predicts CAD eve

35 The association of the electron beam CT-derived coronary artery calcium score a

36 rver variation in calcium scores between the electron-beam CT and spiral CT images.

37 ed each of the four scans: one score for the electron-beam CT images and two scores for the spiral CT

38 t yet proved to be a feasible alternative to electron-beam CT for coronary artery calcium quantificat

39 -detector row CT appears to be comparable to electron-beam CT for coronary calcification screening, e

40 ctors are applied, helical CT is superior to electron-beam CT in quantifying coronary arterial calciu

41 enhanced, electrocardiographically triggered electron-beam CT of the heart were performed in 23 patie

42 Ultrafast electron beam CT measures the calcium content in the ath

43 tomatic persons age 50 to 70 years underwent electron beam CT scanning of the coronary arteries.

44 analyses: in group A, 172 patients underwent electron-beam CT (EBCT) imaging within 60 days of suffer

45 in eight (16%) of 51 subjects who underwent electron-beam CT versus multi-detector row CT scanning.

46 to those obtained with previously validated electron-beam CT.

47 difference between the results obtained with electron-beam CT and those obtained with spiral CT (P <.

48 Scans were obtained with electron-beam CT without oral or intravenous contrast ma

49 qualitatively similar to those obtained with electron-beam CT, as were the quantitative values of ren

50 ronary calcification have been obtained with electron-beam CT, but recently multislice CT, which is m

51 subsecond spiral CT and those obtained with electron-beam CT.

52 cation on the phantom heart and scanned with electron-beam CT and helical CT in horizontal and vertic

53 aluation and coronary calcium screening with electron-beam CT.

54 better quantified with helical CT than with electron-beam CT (P =.004).