Multi-Energy Low-Kiloelectron Volt versus Single-Energy Low-Kilovolt Images for Endoleak Detection at CT Angiography of the Aorta.

IF 3.8 Q1 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING Radiology. Cardiothoracic imaging Pub Date : 2024-04-01 DOI:10.1148/ryct.230217
Anna Landsmann, Thomas Sartoretti, Victor Mergen, Lisa Jungblut, Matthias Eberhard, Adrian Kobe, Hatem Alkadhi, André Euler
{"title":"Multi-Energy Low-Kiloelectron Volt versus Single-Energy Low-Kilovolt Images for Endoleak Detection at CT Angiography of the Aorta.","authors":"Anna Landsmann, Thomas Sartoretti, Victor Mergen, Lisa Jungblut, Matthias Eberhard, Adrian Kobe, Hatem Alkadhi, André Euler","doi":"10.1148/ryct.230217","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Purpose To compare image quality, diagnostic performance, and conspicuity between single-energy and multi-energy images for endoleak detection at CT angiography (CTA) after endovascular aortic repair (EVAR). Materials and Methods In this single-center prospective randomized controlled trial, individuals undergoing CTA after EVAR between August 2020 and May 2022 were allocated to imaging using either low-kilovolt single-energy images (SEI; 80 kV, group A) or low-kiloelectron volt virtual monoenergetic images (VMI) at 40 and 50 keV from multi-energy CT (80/Sn150 kV, group B). Scan protocols were dose matched (volume CT dose index: mean, 4.5 mGy ± 1.8 [SD] vs 4.7 mGy ± 1.3, <i>P</i> = .41). Contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) was measured. Two expert radiologists established the reference standard for the presence of endoleaks. Detection and conspicuity of endoleaks and subjective image quality were assessed by two different blinded radiologists. Interreader agreement was calculated. Nonparametric statistical tests were used. Results A total of 125 participants (mean age, 76 years ± 8; 103 men) were allocated to groups A (<i>n</i> = 64) and B (<i>n</i> = 61). CNR was significantly lower for 40-keV VMI (mean, 19.1; <i>P</i> = .048) and 50-keV VMI (mean, 16.8; <i>P</i> < .001) as compared with SEI (mean, 22.2). In total, 45 endoleaks were present (A: 23 vs B: 22). Sensitivity for endoleak detection was higher for SEI (82.6%, 19 of 23; <i>P</i> = .88) and 50-keV VMI (81.8%, 18 of 22; <i>P</i> = .90) as compared with 40-keV VMI (77.3%, 17 of 22). Specificity was comparable among groups (SEI: 92.7%, 38 of 41; both VMI energies: 92.3%, 35 of 38; <i>P</i> = .99), with an interreader agreement of 1. Conspicuity of endoleaks was comparable between SEI (median, 2.99) and VMI (both energies: median, 2.87; <i>P</i> = .04). Overall subjective image quality was rated significantly higher for SEI (median, 4 [IQR, 4-4) as compared with 40 and 50 keV (both energies: median, 4 [IQR, 3-4]; <i>P</i> < .001). Conclusion SEI demonstrated higher image quality and comparable diagnostic accuracy as compared with 50-keV VMI for endoleak detection at CTA after EVAR. <b>Keywords:</b> Aneurysms, CT, CT Angiography, Vascular, Aorta, Technology Assessment, Multidetector CT, Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms, Endoleaks, Perigraft Leak <i>Supplemental material is available for this article</i>. © RSNA, 2024.</p>","PeriodicalId":21168,"journal":{"name":"Radiology. Cardiothoracic imaging","volume":"6 2","pages":"e230217"},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11056760/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Radiology. Cardiothoracic imaging","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1148/ryct.230217","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose To compare image quality, diagnostic performance, and conspicuity between single-energy and multi-energy images for endoleak detection at CT angiography (CTA) after endovascular aortic repair (EVAR). Materials and Methods In this single-center prospective randomized controlled trial, individuals undergoing CTA after EVAR between August 2020 and May 2022 were allocated to imaging using either low-kilovolt single-energy images (SEI; 80 kV, group A) or low-kiloelectron volt virtual monoenergetic images (VMI) at 40 and 50 keV from multi-energy CT (80/Sn150 kV, group B). Scan protocols were dose matched (volume CT dose index: mean, 4.5 mGy ± 1.8 [SD] vs 4.7 mGy ± 1.3, P = .41). Contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) was measured. Two expert radiologists established the reference standard for the presence of endoleaks. Detection and conspicuity of endoleaks and subjective image quality were assessed by two different blinded radiologists. Interreader agreement was calculated. Nonparametric statistical tests were used. Results A total of 125 participants (mean age, 76 years ± 8; 103 men) were allocated to groups A (n = 64) and B (n = 61). CNR was significantly lower for 40-keV VMI (mean, 19.1; P = .048) and 50-keV VMI (mean, 16.8; P < .001) as compared with SEI (mean, 22.2). In total, 45 endoleaks were present (A: 23 vs B: 22). Sensitivity for endoleak detection was higher for SEI (82.6%, 19 of 23; P = .88) and 50-keV VMI (81.8%, 18 of 22; P = .90) as compared with 40-keV VMI (77.3%, 17 of 22). Specificity was comparable among groups (SEI: 92.7%, 38 of 41; both VMI energies: 92.3%, 35 of 38; P = .99), with an interreader agreement of 1. Conspicuity of endoleaks was comparable between SEI (median, 2.99) and VMI (both energies: median, 2.87; P = .04). Overall subjective image quality was rated significantly higher for SEI (median, 4 [IQR, 4-4) as compared with 40 and 50 keV (both energies: median, 4 [IQR, 3-4]; P < .001). Conclusion SEI demonstrated higher image quality and comparable diagnostic accuracy as compared with 50-keV VMI for endoleak detection at CTA after EVAR. Keywords: Aneurysms, CT, CT Angiography, Vascular, Aorta, Technology Assessment, Multidetector CT, Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms, Endoleaks, Perigraft Leak Supplemental material is available for this article. © RSNA, 2024.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在主动脉 CT 血管造影中,多能量低千伏与单能量低千伏图像在内膜渗漏检测中的对比。
目的 比较单能量和多能量图像在血管内主动脉修复术(EVAR)后 CT 血管造影(CTA)中用于内漏检测的图像质量、诊断性能和清晰度。材料与方法 在这项单中心前瞻性随机对照试验中,2020 年 8 月至 2022 年 5 月期间接受 EVAR 后 CTA 的患者被分配到使用低千伏单能图像(SEI;80 千伏,A 组)或多能 CT(80/Sn150 千伏,B 组)40 和 50 千伏的低千伏虚拟单能图像(VMI)进行成像。扫描方案剂量匹配(容积 CT 剂量指数:平均值 4.5 mGy ± 1.8 [SD] vs 4.7 mGy ± 1.3,P = .41)。测量对比度与噪声比(CNR)。两位放射科专家确定了是否存在内漏的参考标准。由两名不同的盲人放射科医生对内膜漏的检测和明显程度以及主观图像质量进行评估。计算读片者之间的一致性。采用非参数统计检验。结果 共有 125 名参与者(平均年龄 76 岁 ± 8 岁;103 名男性)被分配到 A 组(64 人)和 B 组(61 人)。与 SEI(平均值为 22.2)相比,40-keV VMI(平均值为 19.1;P = .048)和 50-keV VMI(平均值为 16.8;P < .001)的 CNR 明显较低。共有 45 个内漏(A:23 个;B:22 个)。与 40-keV VMI(77.3%,22 人中有 17 人)相比,SEI(82.6%,23 人中有 19 人;P = .88)和 50-keV VMI(81.8%,22 人中有 18 人;P = .90)的内漏检测灵敏度更高。各组的特异性相当(SEI:92.7%,41 组中的 38 组;两种 VMI 能量:92.3%,38 组中的 35 组;P = .99),读片者之间的一致性为 1。SEI(中位数,2.99)和 VMI(两种能量:中位数,2.87;P = .04)的内漏明显度相当。与 40 和 50 keV(两种能量:中位数均为 4 [IQR,3-4];P < .001)相比,SEI 的整体主观图像质量评分明显更高(中位数为 4 [IQR,4-4])。结论 SEI 与 50-keV VMI 相比,在 EVAR 后的 CTA 内漏检测中显示出更高的图像质量和相当的诊断准确性。关键词动脉瘤、CT、CT 血管造影、血管、主动脉、技术评估、多载体 CT、腹主动脉瘤、内漏、移植物周围漏 本文有补充材料。© RSNA, 2024.
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
20.40
自引率
1.40%
发文量
0
期刊介绍:
期刊最新文献
Accelerated Cardiac MRI with Deep Learning-based Image Reconstruction for Cine Imaging. Diagnostic Performance of AI-enabled Plaque Quantification from Coronary CT Angiography Compared with Intravascular Ultrasound. Cardiac MRI Pectoralis Muscle Thickness as a Measure of Sarcopenia: Prognostic Significance, Interreader Agreement, and Physiologic Correlation. Association of Aortic Stiffness with Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction: New Insights into the Ventriculoarterial Connection. Severe Quadricuspid Pulmonary Valve Stenosis Presenting as Scrotal Edema.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1