Automated attenuation-based kilovoltage selection: preliminary observations in patients after endovascular aneurysm repair of the abdominal aorta.
prospective_cohort · Level II
Where this comes from
- Record sourced from PubMed, PMID 22915430.
- Also identified by DOI 10.2214/AJR.11.8029.
- No licence information is recorded for this record.
- Because redistribution is not established, this page shows the abstract only. Follow the links below for the full text.
Abstract
The objective of our study was to assess prospectively the impact of automated attenuation-based kilovoltage selection on image quality and radiation dose in patients undergoing body CT angiography (CTA) after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) of the abdominal aorta. Thirty-five patients (five women, 30 men; mean age ± SD, 69 ± 13 years; mean body mass index ± SD, 27.3 ± 4.5 kg/m(2)) underwent 64-MDCT angiography of the thoracoabdominal aorta using a fixed 120-kVp protocol (scan A: 120 mAs [reference]; rotation time, 0.33 second; pitch, 1.2) and, within a median time interval of 224 days, using a protocol with automated kilovoltage selection (scan B: tube voltage, 80-140 kVp). Subjective image quality (5-point scale: 1 [excellent] to 5 [nondiagnostic]) and objective image quality (aortic attenuation at four locations of the aortoiliac system, noise, contrast-to-noise ratio [CNR]) were assessed independently by two blinded radiologists. The volume CT dose index (CTDI(vol)) was compared between scans A and B. The subjective image quality of scans A and B was similar (median score for both, 1; range, 1-4; p = 0.74), with all datasets being of diagnostic quality. Automated attenuation-based kilovoltage selection led to a reduction to 80 kVp in one patient (2.9%) and 100 kVp in 18 patients (51.4%). Fifteen of 35 patients (42.9%) were scanned at 120 kVp, whereas in one patient (2.9%) the kilovoltage setting increased to 140 kVp. Image noise (scan A vs scan B: mean ± SD, 12.8 ± 2.3 vs 13.7 ± 2.9 HU, respectively) was significantly (p < 0.05) higher in scan B than in scan A, whereas CNR was similar among scans (A vs B: mean ± SD, 15.7 ± 7.0 vs 16.9 ± 9.7; p = 0.43). The CTDI(vol) was significantly lower in scan B (mean ± SD, 8.9 ± 2.9 mGy; scan A, 10.6 ± 1.5 mGy; average reduction, 16%; p = 0.002) despite a higher tube current-exposure time product (B vs A: mean ± SD, 152 ± 27 vs 141 ± 29 mAs; p = 0.01). In patients undergoing follow-up after EVAR of the abdominal aorta, body CTA using automated attenuation-based kilovoltage selection yields similar subjective image quality and CNR at a significantly reduced dose compared with a protocol that uses 120 kVp.
Medical subject headings
- Aortic Aneurysm, Abdominal
- Endovascular Procedures