OBJECTIVES: To evaluate CT aortography at reduced tube voltage and contrast medium dose while maintaining image quality through iterative reconstruction (IR). METHODS: The Institutional Review Board approved a prospective study of 48 patients who underwent follow-up CT aortography. We performed intra-individual comparisons of arterial phase images using 120 kVp (standard tube voltage) and 80 kVp (low tube voltage). Low-tube-voltage imaging was performed on a 320-detector CT with IR following injection of 40 ml of contrast medium. We assessed aortic attenuation, aortic attenuation gradient, image noise, contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), volume CT dose index (CTDIvol), and figure of merit (FOM) of image noise and CNR. Two readers assessed images for diagnostic quality, image noise, and artefacts. RESULTS: The low-tube-voltage protocol showed 23-31% higher mean aortic attenuation and image noise (both P < 0.01) than the standard-tube-voltage protocol, but no significant difference in the CNR and aortic attenuation gradients. The low-tube-voltage protocol showed a 48% reduction in CTDIvol and an 80% increase in FOM of CNR. Subjective diagnostic quality was similar for both protocols, but low-tube-voltage images showed greater image noise (P = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Application of IR to an 80-kVp CT aortography protocol allows radiation dose and contrast medium reduction without affecting image quality. KEY POINTS: • CT aortography at 80 kVp allows a significant reduction in radiation dose. • Addition of iterative reconstruction reduces image noise and improves image quality. • The injected contrast medium dose can be substantially reduced at 80 kVp. • Aortic enhancement is uniform despite a reduced volume of contrast medium.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate CT aortography at reduced tube voltage and contrast medium dose while maintaining image quality through iterative reconstruction (IR). METHODS: The Institutional Review Board approved a prospective study of 48 patients who underwent follow-up CT aortography. We performed intra-individual comparisons of arterial phase images using 120 kVp (standard tube voltage) and 80 kVp (low tube voltage). Low-tube-voltage imaging was performed on a 320-detector CT with IR following injection of 40 ml of contrast medium. We assessed aortic attenuation, aortic attenuation gradient, image noise, contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), volume CT dose index (CTDIvol), and figure of merit (FOM) of image noise and CNR. Two readers assessed images for diagnostic quality, image noise, and artefacts. RESULTS: The low-tube-voltage protocol showed 23-31% higher mean aortic attenuation and image noise (both P < 0.01) than the standard-tube-voltage protocol, but no significant difference in the CNR and aortic attenuation gradients. The low-tube-voltage protocol showed a 48% reduction in CTDIvol and an 80% increase in FOM of CNR. Subjective diagnostic quality was similar for both protocols, but low-tube-voltage images showed greater image noise (P = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Application of IR to an 80-kVp CT aortography protocol allows radiation dose and contrast medium reduction without affecting image quality. KEY POINTS: • CT aortography at 80 kVp allows a significant reduction in radiation dose. • Addition of iterative reconstruction reduces image noise and improves image quality. • The injected contrast medium dose can be substantially reduced at 80 kVp. • Aortic enhancement is uniform despite a reduced volume of contrast medium.
Authors: Helmut Schoellnast; Manfred Tillich; Michael J Deutschmann; Hannes A Deutschmann; Gottfried J Schaffler; Horst R Portugaller Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2004-01 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Yoshiko Sagara; Amy K Hara; William Pavlicek; Alvin C Silva; Robert G Paden; Qing Wu Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2010-09 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Mannudeep K Kalra; Michael M Maher; Thomas L Toth; Bernhard Schmidt; Bryan L Westerman; Hugh T Morgan; Sanjay Saini Journal: Radiology Date: 2004-10-21 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Sarabjeet Singh; Mannudeep K Kalra; Jiang Hsieh; Paul E Licato; Synho Do; Homer H Pien; Michael A Blake Journal: Radiology Date: 2010-09-09 Impact factor: 11.105
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: Zsolt Szucs-Farkas; Boglarka Megyeri; Andreas Christe; Peter Vock; Johannes T Heverhagen; Sebastian T Schindera Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2014-05-28 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Lloyd M Felmly; Carlo N De Cecco; U Joseph Schoepf; Akos Varga-Szemes; Stefanie Mangold; Andrew D McQuiston; Sheldon E Litwin; Richard R Bayer; Thomas J Vogl; Julian L Wichmann Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2016-08-23 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Johannes Boos; Patric Kröpil; Rotem S Lanzman; Joel Aissa; Christoph Schleich; Philipp Heusch; Lino M Sawicki; Gerald Antoch; Christoph Thomas Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2016-03-23 Impact factor: 3.039