Article

Thoracic aorta: prospective electrocardiographically triggered CT angiography with dual-source CT--feasibility, image quality, and dose reduction.

Department of Diagnostic Radiology, University Hospital Freiburg, Hugstetter Strasse 55, 79104 Freiburg, Germany.
Radiology (Impact Factor: 6.34). 02/2010; 255(1):207-17. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.09090860
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To prospectively investigate the feasibility, image quality, and radiation dose for prospective electrocardiographically (ECG) triggered sequential dual-source computed tomographic (CT) angiography of the thoracic aorta in comparison to retrospective ECG-gated helical dual-source CT angiography.
This study was approved by the institutional review board; informed consent was obtained. One hundred thirty-nine patients referred for ECG-assisted dual-source CT angiography of the thoracic aorta were prospectively enrolled. Inclusion criteria were stable sinus rhythm and heart rate of 80 beats per minute or less. Tube voltage was adjusted to body mass index (< 25.0 kg/m(2), 100 kV, n = 58; > or = 25.0 kg/m(2), 120 kV, n = 81). In both cohorts, patients were randomly assigned to prospective or retrospective ECG-assisted data acquisition. In both groups, tube current (250 mAs per rotation) was centered at 70% of the R-R cycle. The presence of motion or stair-step artifacts of the thoracic aorta was independently assessed by two readers. Effective radiation dose was calculated from the dose-length product.
Subjective scoring of motion and stair-step artifacts was equivalent for both techniques. Scan length was not significantly different (23.8 cm +/- 2.4 [standard deviation] vs 23.7 cm +/- 2.5 for prospective and retrospective ECG-triggered CT angiography, respectively; P = .54). Scanning time was significantly longer for prospective ECG-triggered CT angiography (18.8 seconds +/- 3.4 vs 16.4 seconds +/- 3.3, P < .001). Mean estimated effective dose was significantly lower for prospective data acquisition (100 kV, 1.9 mSv +/- 0.5 vs 4.1 mSv +/- 0.7, P < .001; 120 kV, 5.3 mSv +/- 1.1 vs 9.5 mSv +/- 3.0, P < .001).
Prospective ECG-gated sequential dual-source CT angiography of the thoracic aorta is feasible, despite the slightly longer acquisition time. Thus, motion-free imaging of the thoracic aorta is possible at significantly lower radiation exposure than retrospective ECG-gated helical dual-source CT angiography in certain patients with a regular heart rate.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
68 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to prospectively evaluate the contrast enhancement, vascular depiction, image quality, and radiation dose of low-tube-voltage whole-body CT angiography (CTA) performed with low-concentration iodinated contrast material. SUBJECTS AND METHODS. Whole-body CTA was performed on 109 patients with a 64-MDCT scanner. Patients were randomized into three groups: CTA with 240-mg/mL contrast material at 80 kVp (240-80 group), 300-mg/mL at 80 kVp (300-80 group), and 370-mg/mL at 120 kVp (370-120 group). Signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), arterial depiction, image quality, and radiation dose were assessed. Figure of merit was computed to normalize signal-to-noise ratio, estimated effective dose, and iodine weight. RESULTS. In the 240-80 group, the mean load of administered iodine was 21.6 g; for the 300-80 group, 26.8 g; and the 370-120 group, 34.0 g (p < 0.05). The ranges of mean vascular enhancement were 508-521 HU, 546-593 HU, and 435-442 HU (p < 0.05). Arterial depiction and image quality were comparable for the 240-80 and 370-120 groups and were greater for the 300-80 group than the other two groups in selected arteries (p < 0.05). Effective dose was higher (p < 0.05) in the 370-120 group (2.8-5.4 mSv) than in the others (2.3-4.3 mSv). The figure of merit in the 240-80 group was greater than (p < 0.05) or comparable to that in the 370-120 group. CONCLUSION. Use of 240-mg/mL contrast material at 80 kVp seems appropriate for routine whole-body CTA and beneficial for reduction of iodine load and radiation dose, whereas use of 300-mg/mL contrast material may marginally improve delineation of selected small arteries.
    American Journal of Roentgenology 01/2014; 202(1):W106-16. · 2.90 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: 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. 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. 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. Dual-source high-pitch CTAs significantly decreased motion artefact without negatively impacting vascular contrast and radiation dose. • 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.
    European Radiology 02/2014; · 4.34 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To evaluate the feasibility of dose-modulated retrospective ECG-gated thoracoabdominal aorta CT angiography (CTA) assessing abdominal aortic intimal flap motion and investigate the motion characteristics of intimal flap in acute aortic dissection (AAD). 49 patients who had thoracoabdominal aorta retrospective ECG-gated CTA scan were enrolled. 20 datasets were reconstructed in 5% steps between 0 and 95% of the R-R interval in each case. The aortic intimal flap motion was assessed by measuring the short axis diameters of the true lumen and false lumen 2 cm above of celiac trunk ostium in different R-R intervals. Intimal flap motion and configuration was assessed by two independent observers. In these 49 patients, 37 had AAD, 7 had intramural hematoma, and 5 had negative result for acute aortic disorder. 620 datasets of 31 patients who showed double lumens in abdominal aorta were enrolled in evaluating intimal flap motion. The maximum and minimum true lumen diameter were 12.2±4.1 mm (range 2.6∼17.4) and 6.7±4.1 mm (range 0∼15.3) respectively. The range of intimal flap motion in all patients was 5.5±2.6 mm (range 1.8∼10.2). The extent of maximum true lumen diameter decreased during a cardiac cycle was 49.5%±23.5% (range 12%∼100%). The maximum motion phase of true lumen diameter was in systolic phase (5%∼40% of R-R interval). Maximum and minimum intimal flap motion was at 15% and 75% of the R-R interval respectively. Intimal flap configuration had correlation with the phase of cardiac cycle. Abdominal intimal flap position and configuration varied greatly during a cardiac cycle. Retrospective ECG-gated thoracoabdominal aorta CTA can reflect the actual status of the true lumen and provide more information about true lumen collapse. This information may be helpful to diagnosis and differential diagnosis of dynamic abstraction.
    PLoS ONE 01/2014; 9(2):e87664. · 3.73 Impact Factor