OBJECTIVE: To evaluate accuracy of virtual-non-contrast images (VNC) compared to true-unenhanced-images (TNC) for evaluation of liver attenuation acquired using spectral-detector CT (SDCT). METHODS: 149 patients who underwent multiphase transcatheter-aortic-valve-replacement (TAVR) SDCT-examinations [unenhanced-chest (TNC), CT-angiography chest (CTA-chest, early arterial-phase) and abdomen (CTA-abdomen, additional early arterial-phase after a second injection of contrast media)] were retrospectively included. VNC of CTA-chest (VNC-chest) and CTA-abdomen (VNC-abdomen) were reconstructed and compared to TNC. Region of interest-based measurement of mean attenuation (Hounsfield unit, HU) was applied in the following regions: liver, spleen, abdominal aorta and paraspinal muscle. RESULTS: VNC accuracy was high in the liver, spleen, abdominal aorta and muscle for abdomen-scanning. For the liver, average attenuation was 59.0 ± 9.1 HU for TNC and 72.6 ± 9.5 HU for CTA-abdomen. Liver attenuation in VNC-abdomen (59.1 ± 6.4 HU) was not significantly different from attenuation in TNC (p > 0.05). In contrast, VNC was less accurate for chest-scanning: Due to the protocol, in CTA-chest no contrast media was present in the liver parenchyma as indicated by the same attenuation in TNC (59.0 ± 9.1 HU) and CTA-chest (58.8 ± 8.9 HU, p > 0.05). Liver attenuation in VNC-chest (56.2 ± 6.4 HU, p < 0.05) was, however, significantly lower than in TNC and CTA-chest implying an artificial reduction of attenuation. CONCLUSION: VNC performed well in a large cohort of TAVR-examinations yielding equivalent mean attenuations to TNC; however, application of this technique might be limited when no or very little contrast media is present in parenchyma, more precisely in an early arterial-phase of the liver. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This study showed that VNC can be reliably applied in cardiac protocols when certain limitations are considered.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate accuracy of virtual-non-contrast images (VNC) compared to true-unenhanced-images (TNC) for evaluation of liver attenuation acquired using spectral-detector CT (SDCT). METHODS: 149 patients who underwent multiphase transcatheter-aortic-valve-replacement (TAVR) SDCT-examinations [unenhanced-chest (TNC), CT-angiography chest (CTA-chest, early arterial-phase) and abdomen (CTA-abdomen, additional early arterial-phase after a second injection of contrast media)] were retrospectively included. VNC of CTA-chest (VNC-chest) and CTA-abdomen (VNC-abdomen) were reconstructed and compared to TNC. Region of interest-based measurement of mean attenuation (Hounsfield unit, HU) was applied in the following regions: liver, spleen, abdominal aorta and paraspinal muscle. RESULTS: VNC accuracy was high in the liver, spleen, abdominal aorta and muscle for abdomen-scanning. For the liver, average attenuation was 59.0 ± 9.1 HU for TNC and 72.6 ± 9.5 HU for CTA-abdomen. Liver attenuation in VNC-abdomen (59.1 ± 6.4 HU) was not significantly different from attenuation in TNC (p > 0.05). In contrast, VNC was less accurate for chest-scanning: Due to the protocol, in CTA-chest no contrast media was present in the liver parenchyma as indicated by the same attenuation in TNC (59.0 ± 9.1 HU) and CTA-chest (58.8 ± 8.9 HU, p > 0.05). Liver attenuation in VNC-chest (56.2 ± 6.4 HU, p < 0.05) was, however, significantly lower than in TNC and CTA-chest implying an artificial reduction of attenuation. CONCLUSION: VNC performed well in a large cohort of TAVR-examinations yielding equivalent mean attenuations to TNC; however, application of this technique might be limited when no or very little contrast media is present in parenchyma, more precisely in an early arterial-phase of the liver. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This study showed that VNC can be reliably applied in cardiac protocols when certain limitations are considered.
Authors: Yoshihisa Kodama; Chaan S Ng; Tsung T Wu; Gregory D Ayers; Steven A Curley; Eddie K Abdalla; Jean Nicolas Vauthey; Chusilp Charnsangavej Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2007-05 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Andreas P Sauter; Daniela Muenzel; Julia Dangelmaier; Rickmer Braren; Franz Pfeiffer; Ernst J Rummeny; Peter B Noël; Alexander A Fingerle Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2018-05-10 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: Michael J Connolly; Matthew D F McInnes; Mohamed El-Khodary; Trevor A McGrath; Nicola Schieda Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2017-03-13 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Kai Roman Laukamp; David Zopfs; Simon Lennartz; Lenhard Pennig; David Maintz; Jan Borggrefe; Nils Große Hokamp Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2019-01-16 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Paul Stolzmann; Thomas Frauenfelder; Thomas Pfammatter; Nicole Peter; Hans Scheffel; Mario Lachat; Bernhard Schmidt; Borut Marincek; Hatem Alkadhi; Thomas Schertler Journal: Radiology Date: 2008-09-09 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Perry J Pickhardt; Luke Hahn; Alejandro Muñoz del Rio; Seong Ho Park; Scott B Reeder; Adnan Said Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2014-04 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Jasmin A Holz; Hatem Alkadhi; Kai R Laukamp; Simon Lennartz; Carola Heneweer; Michael Püsken; Thorsten Persigehl; David Maintz; Nils Große Hokamp Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2020-12-09 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Julius Henning Niehoff; Matthias Michael Woeltjen; Kai Roman Laukamp; Jan Borggrefe; Jan Robert Kroeger Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) Date: 2021-12-16