OBJECTIVE: To assess endoleak detection and conspicuity using low-kiloelectron volt (keV) monochromatic reconstructions of single-source (fast-switch kilovolt [peak]) dual-energy data sets. METHODS: With approval of the institutional review board, multiphasic dual-energy computed tomographic (CT) scans for aortic endograft surveillance were retrospectively reviewed for 39 patients. Two abdominal radiologists each performed 2 separate reading sessions, at 55-keV and standard 75-keV reconstruction, respectively. The readers tabulated endoleak presence, conspicuity on 1-to-5 scale, and type overall and in arterial and venous phases. Originally, dictated reports in medical records were used as criterion standard. RESULTS: Original dictations identified 19 endoleaks (9 abdominal and 10 thoracic), 13 of which were type II. The blinded readers (R1 and R2) exhibited good to very good intraobserver and interobserver agreement. Endoleak detection was higher at 55 keV than at 75 keV (sensitivity, 100% (95% confidence interval [CI], 82.4%-100.0%) and 84.2% (95% CI, 60.4-96.6%) at 55 keV vs 79% (95% CI, 54.4-94.0%) and 68.4% (95% CI, 43.5%-87.4%) at 75 keV in venous phase). Further, endoleak conspicuity ratings (where original dictation showed positive leak) were higher at 55 keV than at 75 keV, which was a significant difference for R2 in the overall ratings (P = 0.03) and for both readers in the venous phase ratings (R1, P = 0.01; R2, P = 0.004). There was no difference in endoleak type characterization between the kiloelectron volt levels. CONCLUSION: Sensitivity for endoleak detection and overall endoleak conspicuity ratings were both higher at 55 keV than 75 keV, favoring the inclusion of a lower-energy monochromatic reconstruction for endoleak surveillance protocols with dual-energy computed tomography.
OBJECTIVE: To assess endoleak detection and conspicuity using low-kiloelectron volt (keV) monochromatic reconstructions of single-source (fast-switch kilovolt [peak]) dual-energy data sets. METHODS: With approval of the institutional review board, multiphasic dual-energy computed tomographic (CT) scans for aortic endograft surveillance were retrospectively reviewed for 39 patients. Two abdominal radiologists each performed 2 separate reading sessions, at 55-keV and standard 75-keV reconstruction, respectively. The readers tabulated endoleak presence, conspicuity on 1-to-5 scale, and type overall and in arterial and venous phases. Originally, dictated reports in medical records were used as criterion standard. RESULTS:Original dictations identified 19 endoleaks (9 abdominal and 10 thoracic), 13 of which were type II. The blinded readers (R1 and R2) exhibited good to very good intraobserver and interobserver agreement. Endoleak detection was higher at 55 keV than at 75 keV (sensitivity, 100% (95% confidence interval [CI], 82.4%-100.0%) and 84.2% (95% CI, 60.4-96.6%) at 55 keV vs 79% (95% CI, 54.4-94.0%) and 68.4% (95% CI, 43.5%-87.4%) at 75 keV in venous phase). Further, endoleak conspicuity ratings (where original dictation showed positive leak) were higher at 55 keV than at 75 keV, which was a significant difference for R2 in the overall ratings (P = 0.03) and for both readers in the venous phase ratings (R1, P = 0.01; R2, P = 0.004). There was no difference in endoleak type characterization between the kiloelectron volt levels. CONCLUSION: Sensitivity for endoleak detection and overall endoleak conspicuity ratings were both higher at 55 keV than 75 keV, favoring the inclusion of a lower-energy monochromatic reconstruction for endoleak surveillance protocols with dual-energy computed tomography.
Authors: Courtney A Coursey; Rendon C Nelson; Daniel T Boll; Erik K Paulson; Lisa M Ho; Amy M Neville; Daniele Marin; Rajan T Gupta; Sebastian T Schindera Journal: Radiographics Date: 2010 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 5.333
Authors: Wieland H Sommer; Anno Graser; Christoph R Becker; Dirk A Clevert; Maximilian F Reiser; Konstantin Nikolaou; Thorsten R C Johnson Journal: J Vasc Interv Radiol Date: 2010-01-22 Impact factor: 3.464
Authors: Zsolt Szucs-Farkas; Claudio Schaller; Susanne Bensler; Michael A Patak; Peter Vock; Sebastian T Schindera Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Rabih A Chaer; Anna Gushchin; Robert Rhee; Luke Marone; Jae S Cho; Steven Leers; Michel S Makaroun Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2009-04 Impact factor: 4.268
Authors: Benjamin M Yeh; John A Shepherd; Zhen J Wang; Hui Seong Teh; Robert P Hartman; Sven Prevrhal Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2009-07 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Sebastian T Schindera; Patricia Graca; Michael A Patak; Susanne Abderhalden; Gabriel von Allmen; Peter Vock; Zsolt Szucs-Farkas Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2009-10 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Moritz H Albrecht; Jan-Erik Scholtz; Kristina Hüsers; Martin Beeres; Andreas M Bucher; Moritz Kaup; Simon S Martin; Sebastian Fischer; Boris Bodelle; Ralf W Bauer; Thomas Lehnert; Thomas J Vogl; Julian L Wichmann Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2015-09-03 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Jessica L Nute; Lucia Le Roux; Adam G Chandler; Veera Baladandayuthapani; Dawid Schellingerhout; Dianna D Cody Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2015-01 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Tommaso D'Angelo; Andreas M Bucher; Lukas Lenga; Christophe T Arendt; Julia L Peterke; Damiano Caruso; Silvio Mazziotti; Alfredo Blandino; Giorgio Ascenti; Ahmed E Othman; Simon S Martin; Doris Leithner; Thomas J Vogl; Julian L Wichmann Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2017-10-10 Impact factor: 5.315