Search

Rationale and Objectives: To assess image quality and radiation dose of ultra-high-pitch CT pulmonary angiography (CTPA) with free-breathing technique for diagnosis of pulmonary embolism using a photon-counting detector (PCD) CT compared to matched energy-integrating detector (EID)-based single-energy CTPA., Materials and Methods: Fifty-one PCD-CTPAs were prospectively compared to 51 CTPAs on a third-generation dual-source EID-CT. CTPAs were acquired with an ultra-high-pitch protocol with free-breathing technique (40 mL contrast medium, pitch 3.2) at 140 kV (PCD) and 70-100 kV (EID). Iodine maps were reconstructed from spectral PCD-CTPAs. Image quality of CTPAs and iodine maps was assessed independently by three radiologists. Additionally, CT attenuation numbers within pulmonary arteries as well as signal-to-noise and contrast-to-noise ratios (SNR, CNR) were compared. Administered radiation dose was compared., Results: CT attenuation was higher in the PCD-group (all P < 0.05). CNR and SNR were higher in lobar pulmonary arteries in PCD-CTPAs (P < 0.05), whereas no difference was ascertained within the pulmonary trunk (P > 0.05). Image quality of PCD-CTPA was rated best by all readers (excellent/good image quality in 96.1% of PCD-CTPAs vs. 50.9% of EID-CTPAs). PCD-CT produced no non-diagnostic scans vs. three non-diagnostic (5.9%) EID-CTPAs. Radiation dose was lower with PCD-CT than with EID-CT (effective dose 1.33 ± 0.47 vs. 1.80 ± 0.82 mSv; all P < 0.05)., Conclusion: Ultra-high-pitch CTPA with free-breathing technique with PCD-CT allows for superior image quality with significantly reduced radiation dose and full spectral information. With the ultra-high pitch, only PCD-CTPA enables reconstruction of iodine maps containing additional functional information., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Jan-Peter Grunz, Thorsten A. Bley, Andreas S. Kunz, Bernhard Petritsch report a relationship with Siemens Healthineers that includes consulting or advisory and paid expert testimony. Jan-Peter Grunz (grant number Z-3BC/02), Philipp Gruschwitz (grant number Z-02CSP/18) and Theresa S. Patzer (grant number ZZ-36) were financially supported by the Interdisciplinary Center of Clinical Research Würzburg. T.A.B. was financially supported by the German Research Foundation. The other authors declare no further relationships with any companies whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article. The Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology receives ongoing research funding by Siemens Healthineers outside of the presented work. If there are other authors, they declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 The Association of University Radiologists. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

BACKGROUND. Dual-energy CT pulmonary angiography (CTPA) with energy-integrating detector (EID) technology is limited by the inability to use high-pitch technique. OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to compare the image quality of anatomic images and iodine maps between high-pitch photon-counting detector (PCD) CTPA and dual-energy EID CTPA. METHODS. This prospective study included 117 patients (70 men and 47 women; median age, 65 years) who underwent CTPA to evaluate for pulmonary embolism between March 2022 and November 2022. Fifty-eight patients were randomized to undergo PCD CTPA (pitch, 2.0), and 59 were randomized to undergo EID CTPA (pitch, 0.55). For each examination, 120-kV polychromatic images, 60-keV virtual monogenetic images (VMIs), and iodine maps were reconstructed. One radiologist measured CNR and SNR. Three radiologists independently assessed subjective image quality (on a scale of 1-4, with a score of 1 denoting highest quality). Radiation dose was recorded. RESULTS. SNR and CNR were higher for PCD CTPA than for EID CTPA for polychromatic images and VMIs, for all assessed vessels other than the left upper lobe artery. For example, for PCD CTPA versus EID CTPA, the right lower lobe artery on polychromatic images had an SNR of 34.5 versus 28.0 ( p = .003) and a CNR of 29.2 versus 24.4 ( p = .001), and on VMIs it had an SNR of 43.2 versus 32.7 ( p = .005) and a CNR of 37.4 versus 29.3 ( p = .002). For both scanners for readers 1 and 2, the median image quality score for polychromatic images and VMIs was 1, although distributions indicated significantly better scores for PCD CTPA than for EID CTPA for polychromatic images for reader 1 ( p = .02) and reader 2 ( p = .005) and for VMIs for reader 1 ( p = .001) and reader 2 ( p = .006). The image quality of anatomic image sets was not different between PCD CTPA and EID CTPA for reader 3 ( p > .05). The image quality of iodine maps was not different between PCD CTPA and EID CTPA for any reader ( p > .05). For PCD CTPA versus EID CTPA, the CTDI vol was 3.9 versus 4.5 mGy ( p = .03), and the DLP was 123.5 mGy × cm versus 157.0 mGy × cm ( p < .001). CONCLUSION. High-pitch PCD CTPA provided anatomic images with better subjective and objective image quality versus dual-energy EID CTPA, with lower radiation dose. Iodine maps showed no significant difference in image quality between scanners. CLINICAL IMPACT. CTPA may benefit from the PCD CT technique.

Purpose:  Comparison of dual-source dual-energy CT (DS-DECT) and split-filter dual-energy CT (SF-DECT) regarding image quality and radiation dose in patients with suspected pulmonary embolism., Materials and Methods:  We retrospectively analyzed pulmonary dual-energy CT angiography (CTPA) scans performed on two different CT scanners in 135 patients with suspected pulmonary embolism (PE). Scan parameters for DS-DECT were 90/Sn150 kV (n = 68 patients), and Au/Sn120 kV for SF-DECT (n = 67 patients). The iodine delivery rate was 1400 mg/s in the DS-DECT group vs. 1750 mg/s in the SF-DECT group. Color-coded iodine distribution maps were generated for both protocols. Objective (CT attenuation of pulmonary trunk [HU], signal-to-noise ratio [SNR], contrast-to-noise ratio [CNR]) and subjective image quality parameters (two readers [R], five-point Likert scale), as well as radiation dose parameters (effective radiation dose, size-specific dose estimations [SSDE]) were compared., Results:  All CTPA scans in both groups were of diagnostic image quality. Subjective CTPA image quality was rated as good or excellent in 80.9 %/82.4 % (R1 / R2) of DS-DECT scans, and in 77.6 %/76.1 % of SF-DECT scans. For both readers, the image quality of split-filter iodine distribution maps was significantly lower (p < 0.05) with good or excellent ratings in only 43.3 %/46.3 % (R1 / R2) vs. 83.8 %/88.2 % for maps from DS-DECT. The HU values of the pulmonary trunk did not differ between the two techniques (p = n. s.), while both the SNR and CNR were significantly higher in the split-filter group (p < 0.001; p = 0.003). Both effective radiation dose (2.70 ± 1.32 mSv vs. 2.89 ± 0.94 mSv) and SSDE (4.71 ± 1.63 mGy vs. 5.84 ± 1.11 mGy) were significantly higher in the split-filter group (p < 0.05)., Conclusion:  The split-filter allows for dual-energy imaging of suspected pulmonary embolism but is associated with lower iodine distribution map quality and higher radiation dose., Key Points:   · The split-filter allows for dual-energy data acquisition from single-source single-layer CT scanners.. · Compared to the assessed dual-source dual-energy system, split-filter dual-energy imaging of a suspected pulmonary embolism is associated with lower iodine distribution map quality and higher radiation dose.. · Both the split-filter and the dual-source scanner provide diagnostic image quality in CTPA.., Citation Format: · Petritsch B, Pannenbecker P, Weng AM et al. Comparison of Dual- and Single-Source Dual-Energy CT for Diagnosis of Acute Pulmonary Artery Embolism. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2021; 193: 427 - 436., Competing Interests: lnstitutional research grand from Siemens Healthcare GmbH.Bernhard Petritsch: Speaker honorar from Siemens Healthcare GmbH.Jan-Peter Grunz: Speaker honorar from Siemens Healthcare GmbH.Thorsten Alexander Bley: Speaker honorar from Siemens Healthcare GmbH and Bracco lmaging GmbH., (Thieme. All rights reserved.)