Comparison of full-iodine conventional CT and half-iodine virtual monochromatic imaging: advantages and disadvantages.
Aged
Aorta
/ diagnostic imaging
Celiac Artery
/ diagnostic imaging
Computed Tomography Angiography
/ methods
Contrast Media
Female
Humans
Image Enhancement
/ methods
Image Processing, Computer-Assisted
/ methods
Iodine
Male
Mesenteric Artery, Superior
/ diagnostic imaging
Radiation Dosage
Retrospective Studies
CT angiography
Iodine
Qualitative evaluation
Quantitative evaluation
Retrospective study
Journal
European radiology
ISSN: 1432-1084
Titre abrégé: Eur Radiol
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 9114774
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Mar 2019
Mar 2019
Historique:
received:
04
07
2018
accepted:
16
08
2018
revised:
05
08
2018
pubmed:
14
9
2018
medline:
4
4
2019
entrez:
14
9
2018
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To compare image quality of abdominal arteries between full-iodine-dose conventional CT and half-iodine-dose virtual monochromatic imaging (VMI). We retrospectively evaluated images of 21 patients (10 men, 11 women; mean age, 73.9 years) who underwent both full-iodine (600 mg/kg) conventional CT and half-iodine (300 mg/kg) VMI. For each patient, we measured and compared CT attenuation and the contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) of the aorta, celiac artery, and superior mesenteric artery (SMA). We also compared CT dose index (CTDI). Two board-certified diagnostic radiologists evaluated visualisation of the main trunks and branches of the celiac artery and SMA in maximum-intensity-projection images. We evaluated spatial resolution of the two scans using an acrylic phantom. The two scans demonstrated no significant difference in CT attenuation of the aorta, celiac artery, and SMA, but CNRs of the aorta and celiac artery were significantly higher in VMI (p = 0.011 and 0.030, respectively). CTDI was significantly higher in VMI (p = 0.024). There was no significant difference in visualisation of the main trunk of the celiac artery and SMA, but visualisation of the gastroduodenal artery, pancreatic arcade, branch of the SMA, marginal arteries, and vasa recta was significantly better in the conventional scan (p < 0.001). The calculated modular transfer function (MTF) suggested decreased spatial resolution of the half-iodine VMI. Large-vessel depiction and CNRs were comparable between full-iodine conventional CT and half-iodine VMI images, but VMI did not permit clear visualisation of small arteries and required a larger radiation dose. ・Reducing the dose of iodine contrast medium is essential for chronic kidney disease patients to prevent contrast-induced nephropathy. ・In virtual monochromatic images at low keV, contrast of relatively large vessels is maintained even with reduced iodine load, but visibility of small vessels is impaired with decreased spatial resolution. ・We should be aware about the advantages and disadvantages associated with virtual monochromatic imaging with reduced iodine dose.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30209591
doi: 10.1007/s00330-018-5724-4
pii: 10.1007/s00330-018-5724-4
doi:
Substances chimiques
Contrast Media
0
Iodine
9679TC07X4
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1400-1407Références
Radiographics. 2004 Sep-Oct;24(5):1367-80
pubmed: 15371614
Eur Radiol. 2012 Dec;22(12):2654-61
pubmed: 22752461
Radiology. 2012 Jan;262(1):109-16
pubmed: 22084211
J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2016 Sep-Oct;40(5):777-83
pubmed: 27454785
Acad Radiol. 2018 Apr;25(4):509-518
pubmed: 29198945
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016 Sep 27;68(13):1465-1473
pubmed: 27659469
Radiology. 2011 Apr;259(1):257-62
pubmed: 21330561
Eur Radiol. 2009 Apr;19(4):1027-34
pubmed: 18987864
Radiology. 2012 Jan;262(1):290-7
pubmed: 22084206
Radiology. 2014 Jun;271(3):688-94
pubmed: 24520943
Radiology. 2014 Jul;272(1):154-63
pubmed: 24620913
Br J Radiol. 2016 Jun;89(1062):20151022
pubmed: 27031376
Pediatr Radiol. 2016 Nov;46(12):1663-1670
pubmed: 27531216
Eur Radiol. 2014 Dec;24(12):2989-3002
pubmed: 25048191
Br J Radiol. 2003 Aug;76(908):513-8
pubmed: 12893691
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1999 Apr;172(4):925-31
pubmed: 10587122
Am J Med. 1997 Nov;103(5):368-75
pubmed: 9375704
Med Phys. 2015 Jan;42(1):314-23
pubmed: 25563271
Eur J Radiol. 2017 Aug;93:243-251
pubmed: 28668422
Ann Emerg Med. 2017 May;69(5):577-586.e4
pubmed: 28131489
Eur Radiol. 2018 Jul;28(7):2745-2755
pubmed: 29404773
Radiology. 1995 May;195(2):363-70
pubmed: 7724754
Radiology. 2015 Sep;276(3):637-53
pubmed: 26302388
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2012 Feb;33(2):218-24
pubmed: 22033719
Radiology. 2015 Jun;275(3):725-34
pubmed: 25686365
Med Phys. 2012 Jul;39(7):4115-22
pubmed: 22830744
J Opt Soc Am. 1948 Feb;38(2):196-208
pubmed: 18901781
Radiology. 2003 Aug;228(2):303-8
pubmed: 12819342