Hiring in life sciences? Share your open positions with our professional community. Read more Close

Advertisement

Effect of a motion-correction algorithm on motion-related image quality in mid-diastolic CCTA using 320-detector row CT.

Created on 15 Aug 2026

Authors

Tomoya Takayanagi, Takeshi Kondo, Takehiro Arai, Tomonari Sano, Hideki Nagaoka

Published in

Journal of cardiovascular computed tomography. Aug 14, 2026. Epub Aug 14, 2026.

Abstract

Motion artifacts limit coronary CT angiography (CCTA) when mid-diastolic quiescence is short. RR-PQ estimates the low-motion interval available for reconstruction, whereas motion correction may improve image quality without changing cardiac physiology.
To primarily evaluate the incremental effect of Clear Motion Cardiac (CMC) compared with half-scan reconstruction and secondarily characterize the probability of diagnostic image quality across RR-PQ values and derive candidate operational RR-PQ values on a 0.24-s/rotation 320-detector row CT system.
In 1012 consecutive CCTA examinations, paired half-scan and CMC series were reconstructed from identical raw data. Motion was graded A-D (A/B diagnostic). McNemar tests compared paired rates; logistic models estimated diagnostic probability and candidate RR-PQ values.
Diagnostic image quality increased from 841/1012 (83.1%) with half-scan to 939/1012 (92.8%) with CMC (p < 0.0001). Of 171 half-scan failures, 101 were rescued; degradation occurred in 3/1012. Benefit increased with heart rate and was greatest at ≥70 bpm. RR-PQ was strongly associated with the probability of diagnostic image quality; candidate values at 95% probability were 807 ms for half-scan and 739 ms for CMC.
CMC improved diagnostic image quality, especially at higher heart rates and shorter RR-PQ. The derived values may aid workflow planning but are platform- and cohort-specific.

PMID:
42601306
Bibliographic data and abstract were imported from PubMed on 15 Aug 2026.

Read full publication at:
Please sign in to see all details.

Advertisement

Stats

  • Community rating n/a 0 votes
  • Reviewers' rating n/a 0 votes
  • Your rating

1-terrible, 9-excellent. How would you rate this publication? Sign in in to submit your rating.

  • Recommendations n/a n/a positive of 0 vote(s)
  • Views 7
  • Comments 0

Recommended by

  • No recommendations yet.

Post a comment

You need to be signed in to post comments. You can sign in here.

Comments

There are no comments yet.

Advertisement