A clinician's guide to understanding aortic 4D flow MRI.

Four-dimensional flow magnetic resonance imaging is an emerging technique which may play a role in diagnosis and risk-stratification of aortic disease. Some knowledge of flow dynamics and related parameters is necessary to understand and apply this technique in clinical workflows. The purpose of the current review is to provide a guide for clinicians to the basics of flow imaging, frequently used flow-related parameters, and their relevance in the context of aortic disease.Clinical relevance statement Understanding normal and abnormal aortic flow could improve clinical care in patients with aortic disease.

A New Algorithm for Automatically Calculating Noise, Spatial Resolution, and Contrast Image Quality Metrics: Proof-of-Concept and Agreement With Subjective Scores in Phantom and Clinical Abdominal CT.

OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study were to develop a proof-of-concept computer algorithm to automatically determine noise, spatial resolution, and contrast-related image quality (IQ) metrics in abdominal portal venous phase computed tomography (CT) imaging and to assess agreement between resulting objective IQ metrics and subjective radiologist IQ ratings. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An algorithm was developed to calculate noise, spatial resolution, and contrast IQ parameters. The algorithm was subsequently used on 2 datasets of anthropomorphic phantom CT scans, acquired on 2 different scanners (n = 57 each), and on 1 dataset of patient abdominal CT scans (n = 510). These datasets include a range of high to low IQ: in the phantom dataset, this was achieved through varying scanner settings (tube voltage, tube current, reconstruction algorithm); in the patient dataset, lower IQ images were obtained by reconstructing 30 consecutive portal venous phase scans as if they had been acquired at lower mAs. Five noise, 1 spatial, and 13 contrast parameters were computed for the phantom datasets; for the patient dataset, 5 noise, 1 spatial, and 18 contrast parameters were computed. Subjective IQ rating was done using a 5-point Likert scale: 2 radiologists rated a single phantom dataset each, and another 2 radiologists rated the patient dataset in consensus. General agreement between IQ metrics and subjective IQ scores was assessed using Pearson correlation analysis. Likert scores were grouped into 2 categories, "insufficient" (scores 1-2) and "sufficient" (scores 3-5), and differences in computed IQ metrics between these categories were assessed using the Mann-Whitney U test. RESULTS: The algorithm was able to automatically calculate all IQ metrics for 100% of the included scans. Significant correlations with subjective radiologist ratings were found for 4 of 5 noise ( R2 range = 0.55-0.70), 1 of 1 spatial resolution ( R2 = 0.21 and 0.26), and 10 of 13 contrast ( R2 range = 0.11-0.73) parameters in the phantom datasets and for 4 of 5 noise ( R2 range = 0.019-0.096), 1 of 1 spatial resolution ( R2 = 0.11), and 16 of 18 contrast ( R2 range = 0.008-0.116) parameters in the patient dataset. Computed metrics that significantly differed between "insufficient" and "sufficient" categories were 4 of 5 noise, 1 of 1 spatial resolution, 9 and 10 of 13 contrast parameters for phantom the datasets and 3 of 5 noise, 1 of 1 spatial resolution, and 10 of 18 contrast parameters for the patient dataset. CONCLUSION: The developed algorithm was able to successfully calculate objective noise, spatial resolution, and contrast IQ metrics of both phantom and clinical abdominal CT scans. Furthermore, multiple calculated IQ metrics of all 3 categories were in agreement with subjective radiologist IQ ratings and significantly differed between "insufficient" and "sufficient" IQ scans. These results demonstrate the feasibility and potential of algorithm-determined objective IQ. Such an algorithm should be applicable to any scan and may help in optimization and quality control through automatic IQ assessment in daily clinical practice.

Individualized Scan Protocols in Abdominal Computed Tomography: Radiation Versus Contrast Media Dose Optimization.

BACKGROUND: In contrast-enhanced abdominal computed tomography (CT), radiation and contrast media (CM) injection protocols are closely linked to each other, and therefore a combination is the basis for achieving optimal image quality. However, most studies focus on optimizing one or the other parameter separately. PURPOSE: Reducing radiation dose may be most important for a young patient or a population in need of repetitive scanning, whereas CM reduction might be key in a population with insufficient renal function. The recently introduced technical solution, in the form of an automated tube voltage selection (ATVS) slider, might be helpful in this respect. The aim of the current study was to systematically evaluate feasibility of optimizing either radiation or CM dose in abdominal imaging compared with a combined approach. METHODS: Six Göttingen minipigs (mean weight, 38.9 ± 4.8 kg) were scanned on a third-generation dual-source CT. Automated tube voltage selection and automated tube current modulation techniques were used, with quality reference values of 120 kVref and 210 mAsref. Automated tube voltage selection was set at 90 kV semimode. Three different abdominal scan and CM protocols were compared intraindividually: (1) the standard "combined" protocol, with the ATVS slider position set at 7 and a body weight-adapted CM injection protocol of 350 mg I/kg body weight, iodine delivery rate (IDR) of 1.1 g I/s; (2) the CM dose-saving protocol, with the ATVS slider set at 3 and CM dose lowered to 294 mg I/kg, resulting in a lower IDR of 0.9 g I/s; (3) the radiation dose-saving protocol, with the ATVS slider position set at 11 and a CM dose of 441 mg I/kg and an IDR 1.3 g I/s, respectively. Scans were performed with each protocol in arterial, portal venous, and delayed phase. Objective image quality was evaluated by measuring the attenuation in Hounsfield units, signal-to-noise ratio, and contrast-to-noise ratio of the liver parenchyma. The overall image quality, contrast quality, noise, and lesion detection capability were rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = excellent, 5 = very poor). Protocols were compared for objective image quality parameters using 1-way analysis of variance and for subjective image quality parameters using Friedman test. RESULTS: The mean radiation doses were 5.2 ± 1.7 mGy for the standard protocol, 7.1 ± 2.0 mGy for the CM dose-saving protocol, and 3.8 ± 0.4 mGy for the radiation dose-saving protocol. The mean total iodine load in these groups was 13.7 ± 1.7, 11.4 ± 1.4, and 17.2 ± 2.1 g, respectively. No significant differences in subjective overall image or contrast quality were found. Signal-to-noise ratio and contrast-to-noise ratio were not significantly different between protocols in any scan phase. Significantly more noise was seen when using the radiation dose-saving protocol (P < 0.01). In portal venous and delayed phases, the mean attenuation of the liver parenchyma significantly differed between protocols (P < 0.001). Lesion detection was significantly better in portal venous phase using the CM dose-saving protocol compared with the radiation dose-saving protocol (P = 0.037). CONCLUSIONS: In this experimental setup, optimizing either radiation (-26%) or CM dose (-16%) is feasible in abdominal CT imaging. Individualizing either radiation or CM dose leads to comparable objective and subjective image quality. Personalized abdominal CT examination protocols can thus be tailored to individual risk assessment and might offer additional degrees of freedom.

Probability of receiving a high cumulative radiation dose and primary clinical indication of CT examinations: a 5-year observational cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: High radiation exposure is a concern because of the association with cancer. The objective was to determine the probability of receiving a high radiation dose from CT (from one or more examinations within a 5-year period) and to assess the clinical context by evaluating clinical indications in the high-dose patient group. DESIGN: Observational cohort study. Effective radiation dose received from one or more CT examinations within a predefined 5-year calendar period was assessed for each patient. SETTING: Hospital setting. PARTICIPANTS: All patients undergoing a diagnostic CT examination between July 2013 and July 2018 at the Maastricht University Medical Center. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the probability of receiving a high effective dose, defined as ≥100 mSv, from one or more CT examinations within 5 years as derived from a time-to-event analysis. Secondary outcomes were the clinical indication for the initial scan of patients receiving a high effective dose. RESULTS: 100 672 CT examinations were performed among 49 978 patients including 482 (1%) who received a high radiation dose. The estimated probability of a high effective dose from a single examination is low (0.002% (95% CI 0.00% to 0.01%)). The 4.5-year probability of receiving a high cumulative effective dose was 1.9% (95% CI 1.6% to 2.2%) for women and 1.5% (95% CI 1.3% to 1.7%) for men. The probability was highest in age categories between 51 and 74 years. A total of 2711 (5.5%) of patients underwent more than six CT examinations, and the probability of receiving a high effective dose was 16%. Among patients who received a high effective dose, most indications (80%) were oncology related. CONCLUSIONS: The probability of receiving a high radiation dose from CT examinations is small but not negligible. In the majority (80%) of high effective dose receiving patients, the indication for the initial CT scan was oncology related.

A Solution for Homogeneous Liver Enhancement in Computed Tomography: Results From the COMpLEx Trial.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to reach homogeneous enhancement of the liver, irrespective of total body weight (TBW) or tube voltage. An easy-to-use rule of thumb, the 10-to-10 rule, which pairs a 10 kV reduction in tube voltage with a 10% decrease in contrast media (CM) dose, was evaluated. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 256 patients scheduled for an abdominal CT in portal venous phase were randomly allocated to 1 of 4 groups. In group 1 (n = 64), a tube voltage of 120 kV and a TBW-adapted CM injection protocol was used: 0.521 g I/kg. In group 2 (n = 63), tube voltage was 90 kV and the TBW-adapted CM dosing factor remained 0.521 g I/kg. In group 3 (n = 63), tube voltage was reduced by 20 kV and CM dosing factor by 20% compared with group 1, in line with the 10-to-10 rule (100 kV; 0.417 g I/kg). In group 4 (n = 66), tube voltage was decreased by 30 kV paired with a 30% decrease in CM dosing factor compared with group 1, in line with the 10-to-10 rule (90 kV; 0.365 g I/kg). Objective image quality was evaluated by measuring attenuation in Hounsfield units (HU), signal-to-noise ratio, and contrast-to-noise ratio in the liver. Overall subjective image quality was assessed by 2 experienced readers by using a 5-point Likert scale. Two-sided P values below 0.05 were considered significant. RESULTS: Mean attenuation values in groups 1, 3, and 4 were comparable (118.2 ± 10.0, 117.6 ± 13.9, 117.3 ± 21.6 HU, respectively), whereas attenuation in group 2 (141.0 ± 18.2 HU) was significantly higher than all other groups (P < 0.01). No significant difference in attenuation was found between weight categories 80 kg or less and greater than 80 kg within the 4 groups (P ≥ 0.371). No significant differences in subjective image quality were found (P = 0.180). CONCLUSIONS: The proposed 10-to-10 rule is an easily reproducible method resulting in similar enhancement in portal venous CT of the liver throughout the patient population, irrespective of TBW or tube voltage.

Retrospectively ECG-gated helical vs. non-ECG-synchronized high-pitch CTA of the aortic root for TAVI planning.

BACKGROUND: Multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) plays a key role in patient assessment prior to transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). However, to date no consensus has been established on what is the optimal pre-procedural imaging protocol. Variability in pre-TAVI acquisition protocols may lead to discrepancies in aortic annulus measurements and may potentially influence prosthesis size selection. PURPOSE: The current study evaluates the magnitude of differences in aortic annulus measurements using max-systolic, end-diastolic, and non-ECG-synchronized imaging, as well as the impact of method on prosthesis size selection. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Fifty consecutive TAVI-candidates, who underwent retrospectively-ECG-gated CT angiography (CTA) of the aortic root, directly followed by non-ECG-synchronized high-pitch CT of the entire aorta, were retrospectively included. Aortic root dimensions were assessed at each 10% increment of the R-R interval (0-100%) and on the non-ECG-synchronized scan. Dimensional changes within the cardiac cycle were evaluated using a 1-way repeated ANOVA. Agreement in measurements between max-systole, end-diastole and non-ECG-synchronized scans was assessed with Bland-Altman analysis. RESULTS: Maximal dimensions of the aortic root structures and minimum annulus-coronary ostia distances were measured during systole. Max-systolic measurements were significantly and substantially larger than end-diastolic (p<0.001) and non-ECG-synchronized measurements (p<0.001). Due to these discrepancies, the three methods resulted in the same prosthesis size selection in only 48-62% of patients. CONCLUSIONS: The systematic differences between max-systolic, end-diastolic and non-ECG-synchronized measurements for relevant aortic annular dimensions are both statistically significant and clinically relevant. Imaging strategy impacts prosthesis size selection in nearly half the TAVI-candidates. End-diastolic and non-ECG-synchronized imaging does not provide optimal information for prosthesis size selection. Systolic image acquisition is necessary for assessment of maximal annular dimensions and minimum annulus-coronary ostia distances.

Prophylaxis in High-Risk Patients With eGFR < 30 mL/min/1.73 m2: Get the Balance Right.

OBJECTIVES: Clinical guidelines recommend prophylactic intravenous fluids for patients with estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) less than 30 mL/min/1.73 m to prevent adverse postcontrast outcomes. These patients represent a small minority of the population receiving intravascular iodinated contrast material, and data are not readily available. The current study aim is to gain insight into positive and negative effects of prophylaxis by comparing postcontrast outcomes in high-risk patients who did and did not receive prophylaxis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Observational data were gathered over 4 years. Inclusion criteria were age 18 years or older, eGFR less than 30 mL/min/1.73 m, and elective intravascular iodinated contrast administration. Exclusion criteria were dialysis and nonstandard periprocedural prophylaxis. Primary outcome was postcontrast acute kidney injury (>25% or >44 µmol/L serum creatinine increase within 2-5 days). Secondary outcomes were change in eGFR, 5 mL/min/1.73 m or greater eGFR decline, dialysis, and mortality at 1 month postcontrast including primary cause, as well as complications of prophylaxis. Results were stratified by contrast procedure type and corrected for potential confounders. RESULTS: Of all 55,474 elective procedures with intravascular contrast administration, 362 patients met the inclusion criteria: 281 (78%) received standard 0.9% NaCl prophylaxis and 81 (22%) received no prophylaxis. Prophylaxis versus no prophylaxis adjusted odds ratios were nonsignificant and less than 1 for postcontrast renal outcomes (postcontrast acute kidney injury, eGFR decline, dialysis), indicating a trend toward a protective effect of prophylaxis. For mortality, adjusted odds ratios were nonsignificant and greater than 1, indicating a trend toward higher mortality risk after prophylaxis. Of the primary causes of death analyzed in prophylaxis patients, 24% (5/21) were related to prophylaxis. Among 281 prophylaxis patients, 18 (6.4%) complications of prophylaxis occurred: 15 heart failures and 3 arrhythmias. CONCLUSIONS: Based on this study, no standard recommendation with regard to giving or withholding prophylaxis can be given. Prophylactic fluids may confer some protection against postcontrast renal adverse events but may also contribute toward increased risk of short-term death. In this setting, benefits and risks of prophylaxis must be carefully weighed and cardiac parameters assessed for each individual patient.

Evaluation of Safety Guidelines on the Use of Iodinated Contrast Material: Conundrum Continued.

OBJECTIVES: Recently, safety guidelines for the use of intravascular iodinated contrast material have been updated, and the recommended threshold for giving prophylaxis to prevent contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN) has been reduced to estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) less than 30 mL/min/1.73 m. Data on this population in the context of CIN, especially evidence for efficacy of the recommendation of prophylactic intravenous hydration, are lacking. The aim of the current study was to test implicit assumptions underlying the guideline update: (1) patients with eGFR <30 mL/min/1.73 m, as opposed to former high-risk patients with eGFR ≥30 mL/min/1.73 m, are at high risk of CIN and other unfavorable outcomes after intravascular iodinated contrast material administration; (2) prophylactic intravenous hydration mitigates this risk; and (3) the risk of administering prophylactic intravenous hydration does not outweigh the positive preventive effect. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospectively, data were collected from all patients with eGFR <30 mL/min/1.73 m referred for an elective procedure with intravascular iodinated contrast material administration and excluded from the AMACING trial (A MAastricht Contrast-Induced Nephropathy Guideline trial). We compared these patients with those prospectively included in the AMACING trial (with eGFR 30-59 mL/min/1.73 m and risk factors). Main outcomes were CIN (defined as an increase in serum creatinine by more than 25% or 44 µmol/L within 2-6 days postcontrast exposure), dialysis and mortality within 35 days postcontrast exposure, and complications of prophylactic intravenous hydration. RESULTS: A total of 28,803 patients referred for an elective procedure with intravascular iodinated contrast administration were prospectively screened for inclusion in the AMACING trial. One hundred fifty-seven (0.5%) patients had eGFR <30 mL/min/1.73 m, and 155 received intravascular iodinated contrast material. Standard prophylaxis was given to 119/155 of these patients. Data on 2- to 6-day serum creatinine, 35-day dialysis 35-day mortality, and complications of prophylactic intravenous hydration were available for 59/119 (50%), 118/119 (99%), 119/119 (100%), and 119/119 (100%) standard prophylaxis patients, respectively. Incidences in eGFR <30 mL/min/1.73 m versus AMACING patients are as follows: CIN 13.6% versus 2.7% (P = 0.0019); 35-day dialysis 0.9% versus 0.0% (P = 0.2646); 35-day mortality 9.2% versus 0.0% (P < 0.0001); complications of prophylactic intravenous hydration 5.9% versus 5.5% (P = 0.8529). CONCLUSIONS: Postcontrast incidences of CIN and mortality at 35 days are significantly higher in the population with eGFR <30 mL/min/1.73 m than in the former high-risk population with eGFR 30 to 59 mL/min/1.73 m, even after prophylactic intravenous hydration. The risk of complications of prophylactic intravenous hydration is similar and substantial in both populations. Obtaining evidence from a randomized trial that efficacy of prophylactic intravenous hydration outweighs the risk of complications is important but may not be feasible.

Prophylactic Intravenous Hydration to Protect Renal Function From Intravascular Iodinated Contrast Material (AMACING): Long-term Results of a Prospective, Randomised, Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: The aim of A MAastricht Contrast-Induced Nephropathy Guideline (AMACING) trial was to evaluate non-inferiority of no prophylaxis compared to guideline-recommended prophylaxis in preventing contrast induced nephropathy (CIN), and to explore the effect on long-term post-contrast adverse outcomes. The current paper presents the long-term results. METHODS: AMACING is a single-centre, randomised, parallel-group, open-label, phase 3, non-inferiority trial in patients with estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR] 30-59 mL/min/1.73 m2 combined with risk factors, undergoing elective procedures requiring intravenous or intra-arterial iodinated contrast material. Exclusion criteria were eGFR < 30 mL/min/1.73 m2, dialysis, no referral for prophylaxis. The outcomes dialysis, mortality, and change in renal function at 1 year post-contrast were secondary outcomes of the trial. Subgroup analyses were performed based on pre-defined stratification risk factors. AMACING is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02106234. FINDINGS: From 28,803 referrals, 1120 at-risk patients were identified. 660 consecutive patients agreed to participate and were randomly assigned (1:1) to no prophylaxis (n = 332) or standard prophylactic intravenous hydration (n = 328). Dialysis and mortality data were available for all patients. At 365 days post-contrast dialysis was recorded in two no prophylaxis (2/332, 0.60%), and two prophylaxis patients (2/328, 0.61%; p = 0.9909); mortality was recorded for 36/332 (10.84%) no prophylaxis, and 32/328 (9.76%) prophylaxis patients (p = 0.6490). The hazard ratio was 1.118 (no prophylaxis vs prophylaxis) for one-year risk of death (95% CI: 0.695 to 1.801, p = 0.6449). The differences in long-term changes in serum creatinine were small between groups, and gave no indication of a disadvantage for the no-prophylaxis group. INTERPRETATION: Assuming optimal contrast administration, not giving prophylaxis to elective patients with eGFR 30-59 mL/min/1.73 m2 is safe, even in the long-term. FUNDING: Stichting de Weijerhorst.

Prophylactic hydration to protect renal function from intravascular iodinated contrast material in patients at high risk of contrast-induced nephropathy (AMACING): a prospective, randomised, phase 3, controlled, open-label, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Intravenous saline is recommended in clinical practice guidelines as the cornerstone for preventing contrast-induced nephropathy in patients with compromised renal function. However, clinical-effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of this prophylactic hydration treatment in protecting renal function has not been adequately studied in the population targeted by the guidelines, against a group receiving no prophylaxis. This was the aim of the AMACING trial. METHODS: AMACING is a prospective, randomised, phase 3, parallel-group, open-label, non-inferiority trial of patients at risk of contrast-induced nephropathy according to current guidelines. High-risk patients (with an estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR] of 30-59 mL per min/1·73 m2) aged 18 years and older, undergoing an elective procedure requiring iodinated contrast material administration at Maastricht University Medical Centre, the Netherlands, were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive intravenous 0·9% NaCl or no prophylaxis. We excluded patients with eGFR lower than 30 mL per min/1·73 m2, previous dialysis, or no referral for intravenous hydration. Randomisation was stratified by predefined risk factors. The primary outcome was incidence of contrast-induced nephropathy, defined as an increase in serum creatinine from baseline of more than 25% or 44 µmol/L within 2-6 days of contrast exposure, and cost-effectiveness of no prophylaxis compared with intravenous hydration in the prevention of contrast-induced nephropathy. We measured serum creatinine immediately before, 2-6 days, and 26-35 days after contrast-material exposure. Laboratory personnel were masked to treatment allocation. Adverse events and use of resources were systematically recorded. The non-inferiority margin was set at 2·1%. Both intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses were done. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02106234. FINDINGS: Between June 17, 2014, and July 17, 2016, 660 consecutive patients were randomly assigned to receive no prophylaxis (n=332) or intravenous hydration (n=328). 2-6 day serum creatinine was available for 307 (92%) of 332 patients in the no prophylaxis group and 296 (90%) of 328 patients in the intravenous hydration group. Contrast-induced nephropathy was recorded in eight (2·6%) of 307 non-hydrated patients and in eight (2·7%) of 296 hydrated patients. The absolute difference (no hydration vs hydration) was -0·10% (one-sided 95% CI -2·25 to 2·06; one-tailed p=0·4710). No hydration was cost-saving relative to hydration. No haemodialysis or related deaths occurred within 35 days. 18 (5·5%) of 328 patients had complications associated with intravenous hydration. INTERPRETATION: We found no prophylaxis to be non-inferior and cost-saving in preventing contrast-induced nephropathy compared with intravenous hydration according to current clinical practice guidelines. FUNDING: Stichting de Weijerhorst.

Low contrast media volume in pre-TAVI CT examinations.

PURPOSE: To evaluate image quality using reduced contrast media (CM) volume in pre-TAVI assessment. METHODS: Forty-seven consecutive patients referred for pre-TAVI examination were evaluated. Patients were divided into two groups: group 1 BMI < 28 kg/m(2) (n = 29); and group 2 BMI > 28 kg/m(2) (n = 18). Patients received a combined scan protocol: retrospective ECG-gated helical CTA of the aortic root (80kVp) followed by a high-pitch spiral CTA (group 1: 70 kV; group 2: 80 kVp) from aortic arch to femoral arteries. All patients received one bolus of CM (300 mgI/ml): group 1: volume = 40 ml; flow rate = 3 ml/s, group 2: volume = 53 ml; flow rate = 4 ml/s. Attenuation values (HU) and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) were measured at the levels of the aortic root (helical) and peripheral arteries (high-pitch). Diagnostic image quality was considered sufficient at attenuation values > 250HU and CNR > 10. RESULTS: Diagnostic image quality for TAVI measurements was obtained in 46 patients. Mean attenuation values and CNR (HU ± SD) at the aortic root (helical) were: group 1: 381 ± 65HU and 13 ± 8; group 2: 442 ± 68HU and 10 ± 5. At the peripheral arteries (high-pitch), mean values were: group 1: 430 ± 117HU and 11 ± 6; group 2: 389 ± 102HU and 13 ± 6. CONCLUSION: CM volume can be substantially reduced using low kVp protocols, while maintaining sufficient image quality for the evaluation of aortic root and peripheral access sites. KEY POINTS: • Image quality could be maintained using low kVp scan protocols. • Low kVp protocols reduce contrast media volume by 34-67 %. • Less contrast media volume lowers the risk of contrast-induced nephropathy.

Coronary CT angiography using low concentrated contrast media injected with high flow rates: Feasible in clinical practice.

PURPOSE: Aim of this study was to test the hypothesis that peak injection pressures and image quality using low concentrated contrast media (CM) (240 mg/mL) injected with high flow rates will be comparable to a standard injection protocol (CM: 300 mg/mL) in coronary computed tomographic angiography (CCTA). MATERIAL AND METHODS: One hundred consecutive patients were scanned on a 2nd generation dual-source CT scanner. Group 1 (n=50) received prewarmed Iopromide 240 mg/mL at an injection rate of 9 mL/s, followed by a saline chaser. Group 2 (n=50) received the standard injection protocol: prewarmed Iopromide 300 mg/mL; flow rate: 7.2 mL/s. For both protocols, the iodine delivery rate (IDR, 2.16 gI/s) and the total iodine load (22.5 gI) were kept identical. Injection pressure (psi) was continuously monitored by a data acquisition program. Contrast enhancement was measured in the thoracic aorta and all proximal and distal coronary segments. Subjective and objective image quality was evaluated between both groups. RESULTS: No significant differences in peak injection pressures were found between both CM groups (121 ± 5.6 psi vs. 120 ± 5.3 psi, p=0.54). Flow rates of 9 mL/s were safely injected without any complications. No significant differences in contrast-to-noise ratio, signal-to-noise ratio and subjective image quality were found (all p>0.05). No significant differences in attenuation levels were found in the thoracic aorta and all segments of the coronary arteries (all p>0.05). CONCLUSION: Usage of low iodine concentration CM and injection with high flow rates is feasible. High flow rates (9 mL/s) of Iopromide 240 were safely injected without complications and should not be considered a drawback in clinical practice. No significant differences in peak pressure and image quality were found. This creates a doorway towards applicability of a broad variety in flow rates and IDRs and subsequently more individually tailored injection protocols.

Contrast Enhancement of the Right Ventricle during Coronary CT Angiography--Is It Necessary?

PURPOSE: It is unclear if prolonged contrast media injection, to improve right ventricular visualization during coronary CT angiography, leads to increased detection of right ventricle pathology. The purpose of this study was to evaluate right ventricle enhancement and subsequent detection of right ventricle disease during coronary CT angiography. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 472 consecutive patients referred for screening coronary CT angiography were retrospectively evaluated. Every patient underwent multidetector-row CT of the coronary arteries: 128x 0.6mm coll., 100-120kV, rot. time 0.28s, ref. mAs 350 and received an individualized (P3T) contrast bolus injection of iodinated contrast medium (300 mgI/ml). Patient data were analyzed to assess right ventricle enhancement (HU) and right ventricle pathology. Image quality was defined good when right ventricle enhancement >200HU, moderate when 140-200HU and poor when <140HU. RESULTS: Good image quality was found in 372 patients, moderate in 80 patients and poor in 20 patients. Mean enhancement of the right ventricle cavity was 268HU±102. Patients received an average bolus of 108±24 ml at an average peak flow rate of 6.1±2.2 ml/s. In only three out of 472 patients (0.63%) pathology of the right ventricle was found (dilatation) No other right ventricle pathology was detected. CONCLUSION: Right ventricle pathology was detected in three out of 472 patients; the dilatation observed in these three cases may have been picked up even without dedicated enhancement of the right ventricle. Based on our findings, right ventricle enhancement can be omitted during screening coronary CT angiography.

MDCT evaluation of aortic root and aortic valve prior to TAVI. What is the optimal imaging time point in the cardiac cycle?

OBJECTIVES: To determine the optimal imaging time point for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) therapy planning by comprehensive evaluation of the aortic root. METHODS: Multidetector-row CT (MDCT) examination with retrospective ECG gating was retrospectively performed in 64 consecutive patients referred for pre-TAVI assessment. Eighteen different parameters of the aortic root were evaluated at 11 different time points in the cardiac cycle. Time points at which maximal (or minimal) sizes were determined, and dimension differences to other time points were evaluated. Theoretical prosthesis sizing based on different measurements was compared. RESULTS: Largest dimensions were found between 10 and 20% of the cardiac cycle for annular short diameter (10%); mean diameter (10%); effective diameter and circumference-derived diameter (20%); distance from the annulus to right coronary artery ostium (10%); aortic root at the left coronary artery level (20%); aortic root at the widest portion of coronary sinuses (20%); and right leaflet length (20%). Prosthesis size selection differed depending on the chosen measurements in 25-75% of cases. CONCLUSION: Significant changes in anatomical structures of the aortic root during the cardiac cycle are crucial for TAVI planning. Imaging in systole is mandatory to obtain maximal dimensions. KEY POINTS: • Most aortic root structures undergo significant dimensional changes throughout the cardiac cycle. • The largest dimensions of aortic parameters should be determined to optimize TAVI. • Circumference-derived diameter showed maximum dimension at 20% of the cardiac cycle.

Automated quantification of epicardial adipose tissue (EAT) in coronary CT angiography; comparison with manual assessment and correlation with coronary artery disease.

BACKGROUND: Epicardial adipose tissue (EAT) is emerging as a risk factor for coronary artery disease (CAD). OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine the applicability and efficiency of automated EAT quantification. METHODS: EAT volume was assessed both manually and automatically in 157 patients undergoing coronary CT angiography. Manual assessment consisted of a short-axis-based manual measurement, whereas automated assessment on both contrast and non-contrast-enhanced data sets was achieved through novel prototype software. Duration of both quantification methods was recorded, and EAT volumes were compared with paired samples t test. Correlation of volumes was determined with intraclass correlation coefficient; agreement was tested with Bland-Altman analysis. The association between EAT and CAD was estimated with logistic regression. RESULTS: Automated quantification was significantly less time consuming than automated quantification (17 ± 2 seconds vs 280 ± 78 seconds; P < .0001). Although manual EAT volume differed significantly from automated EAT volume (75 ± 33 cm(³) vs 95 ± 45 cm(³); P < .001), a good correlation between both assessments was found (r = 0.76; P < .001). For all methods, EAT volume was positively associated with the presence of CAD. Stronger predictive value for the severity of CAD was achieved through automated quantification on both contrast-enhanced and non-contrast-enhanced data sets. CONCLUSION: Automated EAT quantification is a quick method to estimate EAT and may serve as a predictor for CAD presence and severity.