> Details

Chen, Tony; Xiao, Hao

Does dual‐energy computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA) have improved image quality over routine single‐energy CTPA?

Reference
management

Bookmarks

Remove from
bookmarks

Share this on Whatsapp

Close

Bookmarks



You can manage bookmarks using lists, please log in to your user account for this.
  • Media type: E-Article
  • Title: Does dual‐energy computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA) have improved image quality over routine single‐energy CTPA?
  • Contributor: Chen, Tony; Xiao, Hao
  • imprint: Wiley, 2019
  • Published in: Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Oncology
  • Language: English
  • DOI: 10.1111/1754-9485.12845
  • ISSN: 1754-9477; 1754-9485
  • Origination:
  • Footnote:
  • Description: <jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:sec><jats:title>Introduction</jats:title><jats:p>The aim of this study is to compare the diagnostic sensitivity between dual‐energy computed tomography pulmonary angiography (<jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">CTPA</jats:styled-content>) studies and routine single‐energy <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">CTPA</jats:styled-content> studies.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Methods</jats:title><jats:p>A total of 117 patients with clinically suspected pulmonary embolism were examined with dual‐energy <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">CTPA</jats:styled-content> (<jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">DECT</jats:styled-content>) and reformatted single‐energy multidetector <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">CTPA</jats:styled-content> (<jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">MDCT</jats:styled-content>) studies. Two independent radiologists assessed the image quality of the <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">CTPA</jats:styled-content>s with objective and subjective parameters, including by assigning an image quality score out of 10 for each study. Dose length product and effective dose were also calculated and compared.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Results</jats:title><jats:p>The subjective image quality score for <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">DECT</jats:styled-content> and <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">MDCT</jats:styled-content> studies was 9.19 and 7.88, respectively; however, the increased level of detail in <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">DECT</jats:styled-content> may not be clinically applicable. Pulmonary artery filling defects were found in 12 patients, with no subjective diagnostic differences between dual‐energy or single‐energy studies with either radiologist. The effective dose for <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">DECT</jats:styled-content> ranged from 1.8 to 7.8 <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">mS</jats:styled-content>v. The effective dose for <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">MDCT</jats:styled-content> ranged from 1.2 to 6.4 <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">mS</jats:styled-content>v.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Conclusions</jats:title><jats:p>Radiologists are trained to look at routine <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">MDCT</jats:styled-content>s with high specificity and sensitivity. <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">DECT</jats:styled-content>s do not appear to offer trained radiologists improved detection of clinically relevant pulmonary emboli.</jats:p></jats:sec>