OBJECTIVES: To compare image quality and radiation dose of high-pitch dual-source computed tomography (DSCT), dual energy CT (DECT) and conventional single-source spiral CT (SCT) for pulmonary CT angiography (CTA) on a 128-slice CT system. METHODS: Pulmonary CTA was performed with five protocols: high-pitch DSCT (100 kV), high-pitch DSCT (120 kV), DECT (100/140 kV), SCT (100 kV), and SCT (120 kV). For each protocol, 30 sex, age, and body-mass-index (mean 25.3 kg/m(2)) matched patients were identified. Retrospectively, two observers subjectively assessed image quality, measured CT attenuation (HU±SD) at seven central and peripheral levels, and calculated signal-to-noise-ratio (SNR) and contrast-to-noise-ratio (CNR). Radiation exposure parameters (CTDIvol and DLP) were compared. RESULTS: Subjective image quality was rated good to excellent in >92% (>138/150) with an interobserver agreement of 91.4%. The five protocols did not significantly differ in image quality, neither by subjective, nor by objective measures (SNR, CNR). By contrast, radiation exposure differed between protocols: significant lower radiation was achieved by using high-pitch DSCT at 100 kV (p < 0.01 in all). Radiation exposure of DECT was in between SCT at 100 kV and 120 kV. CONCLUSIONS: SCT, high-pitch DSCT, and DECT protocols techniques result in similar subjective and objective image quality, but radiation exposure was significantly lower with high-pitch DSCT at 100 kV. KEY POINTS: New CT protocols show promising results in pulmonary embolism assessment. High-pitch dual-source CT (DSCT) at 100 kV provides radiation dose savings for pulmonary CTA. High-pitch DSCT at 100 kV maintains diagnostic image quality for pulmonary CTA. Dual energy CT uses more radiation but also provides lung perfusion evaluation. Whether the additional perfusion data is worth the extra radiation remains undetermined.
OBJECTIVES: To compare image quality and radiation dose of high-pitch dual-source computed tomography (DSCT), dual energy CT (DECT) and conventional single-source spiral CT (SCT) for pulmonary CT angiography (CTA) on a 128-slice CT system. METHODS: Pulmonary CTA was performed with five protocols: high-pitch DSCT (100 kV), high-pitch DSCT (120 kV), DECT (100/140 kV), SCT (100 kV), and SCT (120 kV). For each protocol, 30 sex, age, and body-mass-index (mean 25.3 kg/m(2)) matched patients were identified. Retrospectively, two observers subjectively assessed image quality, measured CT attenuation (HU±SD) at seven central and peripheral levels, and calculated signal-to-noise-ratio (SNR) and contrast-to-noise-ratio (CNR). Radiation exposure parameters (CTDIvol and DLP) were compared. RESULTS: Subjective image quality was rated good to excellent in >92% (>138/150) with an interobserver agreement of 91.4%. The five protocols did not significantly differ in image quality, neither by subjective, nor by objective measures (SNR, CNR). By contrast, radiation exposure differed between protocols: significant lower radiation was achieved by using high-pitch DSCT at 100 kV (p < 0.01 in all). Radiation exposure of DECT was in between SCT at 100 kV and 120 kV. CONCLUSIONS: SCT, high-pitch DSCT, and DECT protocols techniques result in similar subjective and objective image quality, but radiation exposure was significantly lower with high-pitch DSCT at 100 kV. KEY POINTS: New CT protocols show promising results in pulmonary embolism assessment. High-pitch dual-source CT (DSCT) at 100 kV provides radiation dose savings for pulmonary CTA. High-pitch DSCT at 100 kV maintains diagnostic image quality for pulmonary CTA. Dual energy CT uses more radiation but also provides lung perfusion evaluation. Whether the additional perfusion data is worth the extra radiation remains undetermined.
Authors: Emmanuel Coche; Franck Verschuren; André Keyeux; Pierre Goffette; Louis Goncette; Philippe Hainaut; Frank Hammer; Edith Lavenne; Francis Zech; Philippe Meert; Marc S Reynaert Journal: Radiology Date: 2003-12 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Helmut Schoellnast; Hannes A Deutschmann; Gerald A Fritz; Uwe Stessel; Gottfried J Schaffler; Manfred Tillich Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2005-06 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Wieland H Sommer; Jan C Schenzle; Christoph R Becker; Konstantin Nikolaou; Anno Graser; Gisela Michalski; Klement Neumaier; Maximilian F Reiser; Thorsten R C Johnson Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2010-02 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Martin Petersilka; Herbert Bruder; Bernhard Krauss; Karl Stierstorfer; Thomas G Flohr Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2008-10-07 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: Sven F Thieme; Christoph R Becker; Marcus Hacker; Konstantin Nikolaou; Maximilian F Reiser; Thorsten R C Johnson Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2008-09-05 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: Thomas Schertler; Hans Scheffel; Thomas Frauenfelder; Lotus Desbiolles; Sebastian Leschka; Paul Stolzmann; Burkhardt Seifert; Thomas G Flohr; Borut Marincek; Hatem Alkadhi Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2007-09-13 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Martin Beeres; Andreas M Bucher; Julian L Wichmann; Claudia Frellesen; Jan E Scholtz; Moritz Albrecht; Boris Bodelle; Nour-Eldin A Nour-Eldin; Clara Lee; Moritz Kaup; Thomas J Vogl; Tatjana Gruber-Rouh Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2016-04-21 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: A Korn; M Fenchel; B Bender; S Danz; C Thomas; D Ketelsen; C D Claussen; G Moonis; B Krauss; M Heuschmid; U Ernemann; H Brodoefel Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2012-12-08 Impact factor: 2.804
Authors: Guang Ming Lu; Song Luo; Felix G Meinel; Andrew D McQuiston; Chang Sheng Zhou; Xiang Kong; Yan E Zhao; Ling Zheng; U Joseph Schoepf; Long Jiang Zhang Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2014-08-07 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Auranuch Lorsakul; Georges El Fakhri; William Worstell; Jinsong Ouyang; Yothin Rakvongthai; Andrew F Laine; Quanzheng Li Journal: J Med Imaging (Bellingham) Date: 2016-07-12
Authors: Li Xiu Cao; Huan Zhang; Bo Liu; Wen Jie Yang; Yan Yan Zhang; Zi Lai Pan; Fu Hua Yan; Ke Min Chen Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2013-05-05 Impact factor: 2.357