OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effect of automated tube voltage selection on radiation dose and image quality at cardiovascular CT angiography (CTA). METHODS: We retrospectively analysed paired studies in 72 patients (41 male, 60.5 ± 16.5 years), who had undergone CTA acquisitions of the heart or aorta both before and after the implementation of an automated x-ray tube voltage selection algorithm (ATVS). All other parameters were kept identical between the two acquisitions. Subjective image quality (IQ) was rated and objective IQ was measured by image noise, signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) and figure of merit (FOM). Image quality parameters and effective dose were compared between acquisitions. RESULTS:Overall subjective image quality improved with the percentage of cases scored as adequate or higher increasing from 79 % to 92 % after implementation of ATVS (P = 0.03). SNR (14.1 ± 5.9, 15.7 ± 6.1, P = 0.009), CNR (11.6 ± 5.3, 13.2 ± 5.6, P = 0.011), and FOM (19.9 ± 23.3, 43.8 ± 51.1, P < 0.001) were significantly higher after implementation of ATVS. Mean image noise (24.1 ± 8.4 HU, 22.7 ± 7.1 HU, P = 0.048) and mean effective dose (10.6 ± 5.9 mSv, 8.8 ± 5.0 mSv, P = 0.003) were significantly lower after implementation of ATVS. CONCLUSIONS:Automated tube voltage selection can operator-independently optimize cardiovascular CTA image acquisition parameters with improved image quality at reduced dose. KEY POINTS: • Automatic tube voltage selection optimizes tube voltage for each individual patient. • In this population, overall radiation dose decreased while image quality improved. • This tool may become valuable for improving dose/quality ratio.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effect of automated tube voltage selection on radiation dose and image quality at cardiovascular CT angiography (CTA). METHODS: We retrospectively analysed paired studies in 72 patients (41 male, 60.5 ± 16.5 years), who had undergone CTA acquisitions of the heart or aorta both before and after the implementation of an automated x-ray tube voltage selection algorithm (ATVS). All other parameters were kept identical between the two acquisitions. Subjective image quality (IQ) was rated and objective IQ was measured by image noise, signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) and figure of merit (FOM). Image quality parameters and effective dose were compared between acquisitions. RESULTS: Overall subjective image quality improved with the percentage of cases scored as adequate or higher increasing from 79 % to 92 % after implementation of ATVS (P = 0.03). SNR (14.1 ± 5.9, 15.7 ± 6.1, P = 0.009), CNR (11.6 ± 5.3, 13.2 ± 5.6, P = 0.011), and FOM (19.9 ± 23.3, 43.8 ± 51.1, P < 0.001) were significantly higher after implementation of ATVS. Mean image noise (24.1 ± 8.4 HU, 22.7 ± 7.1 HU, P = 0.048) and mean effective dose (10.6 ± 5.9 mSv, 8.8 ± 5.0 mSv, P = 0.003) were significantly lower after implementation of ATVS. CONCLUSIONS: Automated tube voltage selection can operator-independently optimize cardiovascular CTA image acquisition parameters with improved image quality at reduced dose. KEY POINTS: • Automatic tube voltage selection optimizes tube voltage for each individual patient. • In this population, overall radiation dose decreased while image quality improved. • This tool may become valuable for improving dose/quality ratio.
Authors: Bernhard A Herzog; Lars Husmann; Nina Burkhard; Ines Valenta; Oliver Gaemperli; Fuminari Tatsugami; Christophe A Wyss; Uif Landmesser; Philipp A Kaufmann Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2009-01 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Achim Eller; Wolfgang Wuest; Michael Scharf; Michael Brand; Stephan Achenbach; Michael Uder; Michael M Lell Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2013-08-30 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: Christopher Herzog; Denise M Mulvihill; Shaun A Nguyen; Giancarlo Savino; Bernhard Schmidt; Philip Costello; Thomas J Vogl; U Joseph Schoepf Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2008-05 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Francesco Tricarico; Anthony M Hlavacek; U Joseph Schoepf; Ullrich Ebersberger; John W Nance; Rozemarijn Vliegenthart; Young Jun Cho; J Reid Spears; Francesco Secchi; Giancarlo Savino; Riccardo Marano; Stefan O Schoenberg; Lorenzo Bonomo; Paul Apfaltrer Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2012-12-04 Impact factor: 5.315
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: Stefanie Mangold; Julian L Wichmann; U Joseph Schoepf; Zachary B Poole; Christian Canstein; Akos Varga-Szemes; Damiano Caruso; Fabian Bamberg; Konstantin Nikolaou; Carlo N De Cecco Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2016-02-04 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: S Suntharalingam; A Wetter; N Guberina; J Theysohn; A Ringelstein; T Schlosser; M Forsting; K Nassenstein Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2016-03-04 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Long Jiang Zhang; Guang Ming Lu; Felix G Meinel; Andrew D McQuiston; James G Ravenel; U Joseph Schoepf Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2015-03-13 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Stefanie Mangold; Julian L Wichmann; U Joseph Schoepf; Damiano Caruso; Christian Tesche; Daniel H Steinberg; Akos Varga-Szemes; Andrew C Stubenrauch; Richard R Bayer; Matthew Biancalana; Konstantin Nikolaou; Carlo N De Cecco Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2016-09-28 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Bastian O Sabel; Kristijan Buric; Nora Karara; Kolja M Thierfelder; Julien Dinkel; Wieland H Sommer; Felix G Meinel Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-02-12 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Saravanabavaan Suntharalingam; Franz Ferdinand Stecker; Nika Guberina; Adrian Ringelstein; Thomas Schlosser; Jens Matthias Theysohn; Michael Forsting; Kai Nassenstein Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-04-06 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Hong Seon Lee; Young Joo Suh; Kyunghwa Han; Jin Young Kim; Suyon Chang; Dong Jin Im; Yoo Jin Hong; Hye-Jeong Lee; Jin Hur; Young Jin Kim; Byoung Wook Choi Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-01-05 Impact factor: 3.240