Photon-Counting Versus Dual-Source CT for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Planning.

Aortic Valve Stenosis Cardiac CT Photon Counting Computed Tomography TAVI TAVR

Journal

Academic radiology
ISSN: 1878-4046
Titre abrégé: Acad Radiol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9440159

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
20 Jun 2024
Historique:
received: 02 05 2024
revised: 07 06 2024
accepted: 07 06 2024
medline: 22 6 2024
pubmed: 22 6 2024
entrez: 21 6 2024
Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

Cardiovascular CT is required for planning transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). To compare image quality, suitability for TAVI planning, and radiation dose of photon-counting CT (PCCT) with that of dual-source CT (DSCT). Retrospective study on consecutive TAVI candidates with aortic valve stenosis who underwent contrast-enhanced aorto-ilio-femoral PCCT and/or DSCT between 01/2022 and 07/2023. Signal-to-noise (SNR) and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) were calculated by standardized ROI analysis. Image quality and suitability for TAVI planning were assessed by four independent expert readers (two cardiac radiologists, two cardiologists) on a 5-point-scale. CT dose index (CTDI) and dose-length-product (DLP) were used to calculate effective radiation dose (eRD). 300 patients (136 female, median age: 81 years, IQR: 76-84) underwent 302 CT examinations, with PCCT in 202, DSCT in 100; two patients underwent both. Although SNR and CNR were significantly lower in PCCT vs. DSCT images (33.0 ± 10.5 vs. 47.3 ± 16.4 and 47.3 ± 14.8 vs. 59.3 ± 21.9, P < .001, respectively), visual image quality was higher in PCCT vs. DSCT (4.8 vs. 3.3, P < .001), with moderate overall interreader agreement among radiologists and among cardiologists (κ = 0.60, respectively). Image quality was rated as "excellent" in 160/202 (79.2%) of PCCT vs. 5/100 (5%) of DSCT cases. Readers found images suitable to depict the aortic valve hinge points and to map the femoral access path in 99% of PCCT vs. 85% of DSCT (P < 0.01), with suitability ranked significantly higher in PCCT vs. DSCT (4.8 vs. 3.3, P < .001). Mean CTDI and DLP, and thus eRD, were significantly lower for PCCT vs. DSCT (22.4 vs. 62.9; 519.4 vs. 895.5, and 8.8 ± 4.5 mSv vs. 15.3 ± 5.8 mSv; all P < .001). PCCT improves image quality, effectively avoids non-diagnostic CT imaging for TAVI planning, and is associated with a lower radiation dose compared to state-of-the-art DSCT. Radiologists and cardiologists found PCCT images more suitable for TAVI planning.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Cardiovascular CT is required for planning transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI).
PURPOSE OBJECTIVE
To compare image quality, suitability for TAVI planning, and radiation dose of photon-counting CT (PCCT) with that of dual-source CT (DSCT).
MATERIAL AND METHODS METHODS
Retrospective study on consecutive TAVI candidates with aortic valve stenosis who underwent contrast-enhanced aorto-ilio-femoral PCCT and/or DSCT between 01/2022 and 07/2023. Signal-to-noise (SNR) and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) were calculated by standardized ROI analysis. Image quality and suitability for TAVI planning were assessed by four independent expert readers (two cardiac radiologists, two cardiologists) on a 5-point-scale. CT dose index (CTDI) and dose-length-product (DLP) were used to calculate effective radiation dose (eRD).
RESULTS RESULTS
300 patients (136 female, median age: 81 years, IQR: 76-84) underwent 302 CT examinations, with PCCT in 202, DSCT in 100; two patients underwent both. Although SNR and CNR were significantly lower in PCCT vs. DSCT images (33.0 ± 10.5 vs. 47.3 ± 16.4 and 47.3 ± 14.8 vs. 59.3 ± 21.9, P < .001, respectively), visual image quality was higher in PCCT vs. DSCT (4.8 vs. 3.3, P < .001), with moderate overall interreader agreement among radiologists and among cardiologists (κ = 0.60, respectively). Image quality was rated as "excellent" in 160/202 (79.2%) of PCCT vs. 5/100 (5%) of DSCT cases. Readers found images suitable to depict the aortic valve hinge points and to map the femoral access path in 99% of PCCT vs. 85% of DSCT (P < 0.01), with suitability ranked significantly higher in PCCT vs. DSCT (4.8 vs. 3.3, P < .001). Mean CTDI and DLP, and thus eRD, were significantly lower for PCCT vs. DSCT (22.4 vs. 62.9; 519.4 vs. 895.5, and 8.8 ± 4.5 mSv vs. 15.3 ± 5.8 mSv; all P < .001).
CONCLUSION CONCLUSIONS
PCCT improves image quality, effectively avoids non-diagnostic CT imaging for TAVI planning, and is associated with a lower radiation dose compared to state-of-the-art DSCT. Radiologists and cardiologists found PCCT images more suitable for TAVI planning.

Identifiants

pubmed: 38906782
pii: S1076-6332(24)00372-6
doi: 10.1016/j.acra.2024.06.014
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2024 The Association of University Radiologists. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Auteurs

Timm Dirrichs (T)

Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital RWTH Aachen, Pauwelsstraße 30, Aachen 52074, Germany. Electronic address: tdirrichs@ukaachen.de.

Jörg Schröder (J)

Department of Cardiology, Angiology and Internal Intensive Care, University Hospital RWTH Aachen, Pauwelsstraße 30, Aachen 52074, Germany.

Michael Frick (M)

Department of Cardiology, Angiology and Internal Intensive Care, University Hospital RWTH Aachen, Pauwelsstraße 30, Aachen 52074, Germany.

Marc Huppertz (M)

Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital RWTH Aachen, Pauwelsstraße 30, Aachen 52074, Germany.

Roman Iwa (R)

Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital RWTH Aachen, Pauwelsstraße 30, Aachen 52074, Germany.

Thomas Allmendinger (T)

Siemens Healthcare, Computed Tomography Division, Forchheim, Germany.

Ines Mecking (I)

Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital RWTH Aachen, Pauwelsstraße 30, Aachen 52074, Germany.

Christiane K Kuhl (CK)

Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital RWTH Aachen, Pauwelsstraße 30, Aachen 52074, Germany.

Classifications MeSH