A Eller1, M Wiesmüller1, W Wüst1, R Heiss1, M Kopp1, M Saake1, M Brand1, M Uder1,2, M M May3,2. 1. From the Department of Radiology (A.E., M.W., W.W., R.H., M.K., M.S., M.B., M.U., M.M.M.), University Hospital Erlangen, Erlangen, Germany. 2. Imaging Science Institute (M.U., M.M.M.), Erlangen, Germany. 3. From the Department of Radiology (A.E., M.W., W.W., R.H., M.K., M.S., M.B., M.U., M.M.M.), University Hospital Erlangen, Erlangen, Germany Matthias.May@uk-erlangen.de.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE:CTA is the imaging modality of choice in many institutions for the evaluation of the supraaortic vessels, but radiation exposure remains a matter of concern. Our aim was to evaluate a 70-kV protocol for CT angiography of the carotid arteries with respect to image quality and radiation exposure compared with automated tube voltage adaption. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 90 consecutive patients were included in this prospective study and randomized to the study group (n = 45, 70 kV) or control group (n = 45, automated tube voltage adaptation). Volume CT dose indices and dose-length products were recorded in the examination protocol. Image quality was assessed as arterial vessel contrast, signal-to-noise ratio, contrast-to-noise ratio, and contrast-to-noise ratio in reference to the radiation dose. Subjective overall image-quality analysis, image-artifact analysis, and diagnostic evaluation were performed by 2 observers by using a 4-point Likert scale. RESULTS:Radiation exposure was significantly lower in the study group (volume CT dose index reduced by 22%, dose-length product reduction by 20%; each P < .001). Contrast (P = .15), SNR (P = .4), and contrast-to-noise ratio (P = .5) did not show significant differences between the groups. The contrast-to-noise ratio in reference to the radiation dose was not significantly increased using the study protocol (P = .2). Subjective image quality and visualization of pathologic findings did not differ significantly between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Carotid CTA using the lowest available voltage (70 kV) is feasible at very-low-dose levels, while overall image quality is comparable with protocols using automated tube voltage selection.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: CTA is the imaging modality of choice in many institutions for the evaluation of the supraaortic vessels, but radiation exposure remains a matter of concern. Our aim was to evaluate a 70-kV protocol for CT angiography of the carotid arteries with respect to image quality and radiation exposure compared with automated tube voltage adaption. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 90 consecutive patients were included in this prospective study and randomized to the study group (n = 45, 70 kV) or control group (n = 45, automated tube voltage adaptation). Volume CT dose indices and dose-length products were recorded in the examination protocol. Image quality was assessed as arterial vessel contrast, signal-to-noise ratio, contrast-to-noise ratio, and contrast-to-noise ratio in reference to the radiation dose. Subjective overall image-quality analysis, image-artifact analysis, and diagnostic evaluation were performed by 2 observers by using a 4-point Likert scale. RESULTS: Radiation exposure was significantly lower in the study group (volume CT dose index reduced by 22%, dose-length product reduction by 20%; each P < .001). Contrast (P = .15), SNR (P = .4), and contrast-to-noise ratio (P = .5) did not show significant differences between the groups. The contrast-to-noise ratio in reference to the radiation dose was not significantly increased using the study protocol (P = .2). Subjective image quality and visualization of pathologic findings did not differ significantly between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Carotid CTA using the lowest available voltage (70 kV) is feasible at very-low-dose levels, while overall image quality is comparable with protocols using automated tube voltage selection.
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: Daniele Andreini; Saima Mushtaq; Edoardo Conte; Chiara Segurini; Marco Guglielmo; Maria Petullà; Valentina Volpato; Andrea Annoni; Andrea Baggiano; Alberto Formenti; Antonio L Bartorelli; Cesare Fiorentini; Mauro Pepi Journal: J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr Date: 2016-06-15
Authors: Thomas G Brott; Jonathan L Halperin; Suhny Abbara; J Michael Bacharach; John D Barr; Ruth L Bush; Christopher U Cates; Mark A Creager; Susan B Fowler; Gary Friday; Vicki S Hertzberg; E Bruce McIff; Wesley S Moore; Peter D Panagos; Thomas S Riles; Robert H Rosenwasser; Allen J Taylor Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2011-02-01 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Anna Winklehner; Robert Goetti; Stephan Baumueller; Christoph Karlo; Bernhard Schmidt; Rainer Raupach; Thomas Flohr; Thomas Frauenfelder; Hatem Alkadhi Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2011-12 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Achim Eller; Matthias S May; Michael Scharf; Axel Schmid; Michael Kuefner; Michael Uder; Michael M Lell Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2012-10 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: M J van Gils; D Vukadinovic; A C van Dijk; D W J Dippel; W J Niessen; A van der Lugt Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2012-02-16 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Amy Berrington de González; Mahadevappa Mahesh; Kwang-Pyo Kim; Mythreyi Bhargavan; Rebecca Lewis; Fred Mettler; Charles Land Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2009-12-14
Authors: Michael A Kuefner; Saskia Grudzenski; Siegfried A Schwab; Melanie Wiederseiner; Martina Heckmann; Werner Bautz; Markus Lobrich; Michael Uder Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2009-08 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: M Kayan; H Demirtas; Y Türker; F Kayan; G Çetinkaya; M Kara; A Orhan Çelik; A Umul; Ö Yılmaz; A Recep Aktaş Journal: Diagn Interv Imaging Date: 2016-07-12 Impact factor: 4.026