OBJECTIVES: This retrospective study assessed whether dual-source high-pitch computed tomographic angiography (CTA) offered advantages over single-source standard-pitch techniques in the evaluation of the ascending aorta. METHODS:Twenty patients who received both thoracic dual-source high-pitch and single-source standard-pitch CTAs within 1 year were assessed. Dual-source CTAs were performed; standard-pitch imaging used dose-modulated 120 kVp/150 mAs and 0.8 pitch compared with high-pitch protocols employing dose-modulated 120 kVp/250 mAs and 2.4 target pitch. Radiation dose was documented. Contrast-to-noise ratios (CNRs) at sinuses of the Valsalva (CNRValsalva) and ascending aorta (CNRAorta) were calculated. Dose/CNR for each technique was compared with paired t-tests. Motion at aortic valve, aortic root and ascending aorta were assessed with four-point scales and Mann-Whitney U tests; longitudinal extension of motion was compared with paired t-tests. RESULTS: Significantly lower motion scores for high-pitch, compared with standard-pitch acquisitions for aortic annulus, 0 vs. 2, aortic root, 0 vs. 3, and ascending aorta, 0 vs. 2, were achieved. Significantly reduced longitudinal extension of motion at aortic root, 4.9 mm vs 15.7 mm, and ascending aorta, 4.9 mm vs 21.6 mm, was observed. Contrast was not impacted: CNRValsalva, 45.6 vs 46.3, and CNRAorta, 45.3 vs 47.1. CTDIvol was significantly decreased for high-pitch acquisitions, 13.9 mGy vs 15.8 mGy. CONCLUSIONS: Dual-source high-pitch CTAs significantly decreased motion artefact without negatively impacting vascular contrast and radiation dose. KEY POINTS: • Dual-source high-pitch CTA significantly decreased motion artefact of the ascending aorta. • Dual-source high-pitch CTA did not negatively impact on vascular contrast. • Dual-source high-pitch CTA significantly decreased radiation dose compared with single-source standard-pitch acquisitions.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: This retrospective study assessed whether dual-source high-pitch computed tomographic angiography (CTA) offered advantages over single-source standard-pitch techniques in the evaluation of the ascending aorta. METHODS: Twenty patients who received both thoracic dual-source high-pitch and single-source standard-pitch CTAs within 1 year were assessed. Dual-source CTAs were performed; standard-pitch imaging used dose-modulated 120 kVp/150 mAs and 0.8 pitch compared with high-pitch protocols employing dose-modulated 120 kVp/250 mAs and 2.4 target pitch. Radiation dose was documented. Contrast-to-noise ratios (CNRs) at sinuses of the Valsalva (CNRValsalva) and ascending aorta (CNRAorta) were calculated. Dose/CNR for each technique was compared with paired t-tests. Motion at aortic valve, aortic root and ascending aorta were assessed with four-point scales and Mann-Whitney U tests; longitudinal extension of motion was compared with paired t-tests. RESULTS: Significantly lower motion scores for high-pitch, compared with standard-pitch acquisitions for aortic annulus, 0 vs. 2, aortic root, 0 vs. 3, and ascending aorta, 0 vs. 2, were achieved. Significantly reduced longitudinal extension of motion at aortic root, 4.9 mm vs 15.7 mm, and ascending aorta, 4.9 mm vs 21.6 mm, was observed. Contrast was not impacted: CNRValsalva, 45.6 vs 46.3, and CNRAorta, 45.3 vs 47.1. CTDIvol was significantly decreased for high-pitch acquisitions, 13.9 mGy vs 15.8 mGy. CONCLUSIONS: Dual-source high-pitch CTAs significantly decreased motion artefact without negatively impacting vascular contrast and radiation dose. KEY POINTS: • Dual-source high-pitch CTA significantly decreased motion artefact of the ascending aorta. • Dual-source high-pitch CTA did not negatively impact on vascular contrast. • Dual-source high-pitch CTA significantly decreased radiation dose compared with single-source standard-pitch acquisitions.
Authors: Justus E Roos; Jürgen K Willmann; Dominik Weishaupt; Mario Lachat; Borut Marincek; Paul R Hilfiker Journal: Radiology Date: 2002-01 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: James P Earls; Elise L Berman; Bruce A Urban; Charlene A Curry; Judith L Lane; Robert S Jennings; Colin C McCulloch; Jiang Hsieh; John H Londt Journal: Radiology Date: 2008-01-14 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Jörg Hausleiter; Tanja S Meyer; Eugenio Martuscelli; Pietro Spagnolo; Hiroaki Yamamoto; Patricia Carrascosa; Thomas Anger; Lukas Lehmkuhl; Hatem Alkadhi; Stefan Martinoff; Martin Hadamitzky; Franziska Hein; Bernhard Bischoff; Miriam Kuse; Albert Schömig; Stephan Achenbach Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2012-05
Authors: Robert Goetti; Stephan Baumüller; Gudrun Feuchtner; Paul Stolzmann; Christoph Karlo; Hatem Alkadhi; Sebastian Leschka Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2010-04 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Bernhard Bischoff; Felix G Meinel; Maximilian Reiser; Hans-Christoph Becker Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2013-01-19 Impact factor: 2.357
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: Franziska M Braun; Veronica Holzner; Felix G Meinel; Marco Armbruster; Martina Brandlhuber; Birgit Ertl-Wagner; Wieland H Sommer Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2017-07-04 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Seong Ho Kim; Young Hun Choi; Hyun-Hae Cho; So Mi Lee; Su-Mi Shin; Jung-Eun Cheon; Woo Sun Kim; In-One Kim Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2015-08-09 Impact factor: 5.315