Moritz H Albrecht1,2, John W Nance1, U Joseph Schoepf3,4, Brian E Jacobs1, Richard R Bayer1,5, Sheldon E Litwin1,5, Michael A Reynolds1, Katharina Otani6, Stefanie Mangold1, Akos Varga-Szemes1, Domenico De Santis1,7, Marwen Eid1, Georg Apfaltrer1,8, Christian Tesche1,9, Markus Goeller10, Thomas J Vogl2, Carlo N De Cecco1. 1. Division of Cardiovascular Imaging, Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Medical University of South Carolina, 25 Courtenay Drive, Charleston, SC, USA. 2. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany. 3. Division of Cardiovascular Imaging, Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Medical University of South Carolina, 25 Courtenay Drive, Charleston, SC, USA. schoepf@musc.edu. 4. Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA. schoepf@musc.edu. 5. Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA. 6. Diagnostic Imaging Research & Collaboration Department, Siemens Healthcare K.K., Tokyo, Japan. 7. Department of Radiological Sciences, Oncological and Pathological Sciences University of Rome "Sapienza", Latina, Italy. 8. Division of Pediatric Radiology, Department of Radiology, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria. 9. Department of Cardiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Heart Center Munich-Bogenhausen, Munich, Germany. 10. Biomedical Imaging Research Institute, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare the diagnostic accuracy between low-kilovolt peak (kVp) (≤ 100) and high-kVp (> 100) third-generation dual-source coronary CT angiography (CCTA) using a kVp-tailored contrast media injection protocol. METHODS: One hundred twenty patients (mean age = 62.6 years, BMI = 29.0 kg/m2) who underwent catheter angiography and CCTA with automated kVp selection were separated into two cohorts (each n = 60, mean kVp = 84 and 117). Contrast media dose was tailored to the kVp level: 70 = 40 ml, 80 = 50 ml, 90 = 60 ml, 100 = 70 ml, 110 = 80 ml, and 120 = 90 ml. Contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) was measured. Two observers evaluated image quality and the presence of significant coronary stenosis (> 50% luminal narrowing). RESULTS: Diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity/specificity) with ≤ 100 vs. > 100 kVp CCTA was comparable: per patient = 93.9/92.6% vs. 90.9/92.6%, per vessel = 91.5/97.8% vs. 94.0/96.8%, and per segment = 90.0/96.7% vs. 90.7/95.2% (all P > 0.64). CNR was similar (P > 0.18) in the low-kVp vs. high-kVp group (12.0 vs. 11.1), as ws subjective image quality (P = 0.38). Contrast media requirements were reduced by 38.1% in the low- vs. high-kVp cohort (53.6 vs. 86.6 ml, P < 0.001) and radiation dose by 59.6% (4.3 vs. 10.6 mSv, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Automated tube voltage selection with a tailored contrast media injection protocol allows CCTA to be performed at ≤ 100 kVp with substantial dose reductions and equivalent diagnostic accuracy for coronary stenosis detection compared to acquisitions at > 100 kVp. KEY POINTS: • Low-kVp coronary CT angiography (CCTA) enables reduced contrast and radiation dose. • Diagnostic accuracy is comparable between ≤ 100 and > 100 kVp CCTA. • Image quality is similar for low- and high-kVp CCTA. • Low-kVp image acquisition is facilitated by automated tube voltage selection. • Tailoring contrast injection protocols to the automatically selected kVp-level is feasible.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the diagnostic accuracy between low-kilovolt peak (kVp) (≤ 100) and high-kVp (> 100) third-generation dual-source coronary CT angiography (CCTA) using a kVp-tailored contrast media injection protocol. METHODS: One hundred twenty patients (mean age = 62.6 years, BMI = 29.0 kg/m2) who underwent catheter angiography and CCTA with automated kVp selection were separated into two cohorts (each n = 60, mean kVp = 84 and 117). Contrast media dose was tailored to the kVp level: 70 = 40 ml, 80 = 50 ml, 90 = 60 ml, 100 = 70 ml, 110 = 80 ml, and 120 = 90 ml. Contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) was measured. Two observers evaluated image quality and the presence of significant coronary stenosis (> 50% luminal narrowing). RESULTS: Diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity/specificity) with ≤ 100 vs. > 100 kVp CCTA was comparable: per patient = 93.9/92.6% vs. 90.9/92.6%, per vessel = 91.5/97.8% vs. 94.0/96.8%, and per segment = 90.0/96.7% vs. 90.7/95.2% (all P > 0.64). CNR was similar (P > 0.18) in the low-kVp vs. high-kVp group (12.0 vs. 11.1), as ws subjective image quality (P = 0.38). Contrast media requirements were reduced by 38.1% in the low- vs. high-kVp cohort (53.6 vs. 86.6 ml, P < 0.001) and radiation dose by 59.6% (4.3 vs. 10.6 mSv, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Automated tube voltage selection with a tailored contrast media injection protocol allows CCTA to be performed at ≤ 100 kVp with substantial dose reductions and equivalent diagnostic accuracy for coronary stenosis detection compared to acquisitions at > 100 kVp. KEY POINTS: • Low-kVp coronary CT angiography (CCTA) enables reduced contrast and radiation dose. • Diagnostic accuracy is comparable between ≤ 100 and > 100 kVp CCTA. • Image quality is similar for low- and high-kVp CCTA. • Low-kVp image acquisition is facilitated by automated tube voltage selection. • Tailoring contrast injection protocols to the automatically selected kVp-level is feasible.
Entities:
Keywords:
Contrast media dose; Coronary CT angiography; Diagnostic accuracy; Radiation dose; Tube voltage
Authors: James V Spearman; U Joseph Schoepf; Marietta Rottenkolber; Ivo Driesser; Christian Canstein; Kolja M Thierfelder; Aleksander W Krazinski; Carlo N De Cecco; Felix G Meinel Journal: Radiology Date: 2015-10-16 Impact factor: 11.105
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: Tessa S S Genders; Sandra Spronk; Theo Stijnen; Ewout W Steyerberg; Emmanuel Lesaffre; M G Myriam Hunink Journal: Radiology Date: 2012-10-23 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Carlo Nicola De Cecco; Felix G Meinel; Salvatore A Chiaramida; Philip Costello; Fabian Bamberg; U Joseph Schoepf Journal: Circulation Date: 2014-03-25 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Moritz H Albrecht; Jesko Trommer; Julian L Wichmann; Jan-Erik Scholtz; Simon S Martin; Thomas Lehnert; Thomas J Vogl; Boris Bodelle Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2016-09 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Felix G Meinel; Christian Canstein; U Joseph Schoepf; Martin Sedlmaier; Bernhard Schmidt; Brett S Harris; Thomas G Flohr; Carlo N De Cecco Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2014-05-10 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Christian Layritz; Jasmin Schmid; Stephan Achenbach; Stefan Ulzheimer; Wolfgang Wuest; Matthias May; Dieter Ropers; Lutz Klinghammer; Werner G Daniel; Tobias Pflederer; Michael Lell Journal: Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2014-06-17 Impact factor: 6.875
Authors: Mathias Meyer; Holger Haubenreisser; U Joseph Schoepf; Rozemarijn Vliegenthart; Christianne Leidecker; Thomas Allmendinger; Ralf Lehmann; Sonja Sudarski; Martin Borggrefe; Stefan O Schoenberg; Thomas Henzler Journal: Radiology Date: 2014-05-31 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Michael M Lell; Ulrike Fleischmann; Hubertus Pietsch; Johannes G Korporaal; Ulrike Haberland; Andreas H Mahnken; Thomas G Flohr; Michael Uder; Gregor Jost Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-03-20 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Simon Lennartz; Nils Große Hokamp; Charlotte Zäske; David Zopfs; Grischa Bratke; Andreas Glauner; David Maintz; Thorsten Persigehl; De-Hua Chang; Tilman Hickethier Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2020-07-24 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Andreas P Sauter; Nadav Shapira; Felix K Kopp; Juliane Aichele; Jannis Bodden; Andreas Knipfer; Ernst J Rummeny; Peter B Noël Journal: Eur J Radiol Open Date: 2020-05-07