RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Computed Tomography Pulmonary Angiography (CTPA) is currently the gold standard for diagnosing Pulmonary Embolism (PE), with a high flowrate (>4.5ml/s) for contrast media (CM) administration recommended for sufficient pulmonary artery opacification. However, this may not be achievable for patients with challenging IV access. AIM: To determine if a low volume CM, low flowrate (LVLF) CTPA protocol produces images of similar image quality compared to a standard protocol in two aspects, in terms of peak arterial enhancement through the quantitative measurement of Hounsfield unit (HU) and based on subjective overall image quality. METHODS: Retrospective collection of 151 patients who underwent CTPA via 320 slice multi-detector CT due to clinical suspicion of PE. 80 patients underwent the standard protocol, with a fixed flowrate of 4.5ml/s and 50ml of CM, while 71 patients underwent the LVLF protocol with up to a 37% and 30% reduction in flowrate and CM administered, respectively. Two independent radiographers measured the attenuation of multiple pulmonary arteries in HU, with ≥200HU being considered diagnostic. Overall image quality was also reviewed using a 5-point close-ended questionnaire by two independent radiologists. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in terms of attenuation measured in HU for the seven regions of interest (main pulmonary trunk, right and left pulmonary arteries, right and left lobar arteries, and right and left subsegmental arteries (RSA and LSA)) between the LVLF and standard CTPA protocol. Similarly, there were no significant differences in the overall image quality score obtained from standard and LVLF protocols reported by both radiologists. CONCLUSION: The LVLF protocol can achieve similar enhancement and subjective image quality as the standard CTPA protocol, potentially allowing for further optimisation in the CM dosage.
RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: In this study, we aimed to compare the split-bolus and single-bolus computerised tomography (CT) urography and determine if this offers a reduction in radiation dose without compromising image quality. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective evaluation was performed on 88 patients undergoing split-bolus CT urography and this was compared to a control group of 101 consecutive patients undergoing single-bolus CT urography. A radiation dose analysis was performed on each subject. Subjects with urinary bladder lesions, hydronephrosis, renal masses or cysts >3 cm in diameter were excluded. All images were classified according to image quality by 2 consultant radiologists. RESULTS: Opacification ofâ the renal parenchyma, pelvicalyceal system, proximal ureters and urinary bladder were comparable between the 2 techniques, whilst image quality of the middle and distal third of the ureters was better using the split-bolus technique. The mean dose length product (DLP) for the single-bolus technique was 1324.1 mGy-cm, whilst that ofâ the split-bolus technique was 885.7 mGy-cm. The mean effective dose reduction was calculated to be 31.1% between the 2 groups. CONCLUSION: The split-bolus technique gives a reduced radiation dose without compromising image quality. The associated reduction in images is beneficial for data storage and reporting efficiency. As such, our department will adopt the split-bolus technique for young, low-risk patients.
