Cargando…

Endoleak detection using single-acquisition split-bolus dual-energy computer tomography (DECT)

OBJECTIVES: To assess a single-phase, dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) with a split-bolus technique and reconstruction of virtual non-enhanced images for the detection of endoleaks after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). METHODS: Fifty patients referred for routine follow-up post-EVAR CT an...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Javor, D., Wressnegger, A., Unterhumer, S., Kollndorfer, K., Nolz, R., Beitzke, D., Loewe, C.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5334388/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27436027
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-016-4480-6
_version_ 1782511843065987072
author Javor, D.
Wressnegger, A.
Unterhumer, S.
Kollndorfer, K.
Nolz, R.
Beitzke, D.
Loewe, C.
author_facet Javor, D.
Wressnegger, A.
Unterhumer, S.
Kollndorfer, K.
Nolz, R.
Beitzke, D.
Loewe, C.
author_sort Javor, D.
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: To assess a single-phase, dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) with a split-bolus technique and reconstruction of virtual non-enhanced images for the detection of endoleaks after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). METHODS: Fifty patients referred for routine follow-up post-EVAR CT and a history of at least one post-EVAR follow-up CT examination using our standard biphasic (arterial and venous phase) routine protocol (which was used as the reference standard) were included in this prospective trial. An in-patient comparison and an analysis of the split-bolus protocol and the previously used double-phase protocol were performed with regard to differences in diagnostic accuracy, radiation dose, and image quality. RESULTS: The analysis showed a significant reduction of radiation dose of up to 42 %, using the single-acquisition split-bolus protocol, while maintaining a comparable diagnostic accuracy (primary endoleak detection rate of 96 %). Image quality between the two protocols was comparable and only slightly inferior for the split-bolus scan (2.5 vs. 2.4). CONCLUSIONS: Using the single-acquisition, split-bolus approach allows for a significant dose reduction while maintaining high image quality, resulting in effective endoleak identification. KEY POINTS: • A single-acquisition, split-bolus approach allows for a significant dose reduction. • Endoleak development is the most common complication after endovascular aortic repair (EVAR). • CT angiography is the imaging modality of choice for aortic aneurysm evaluation.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5334388
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Springer Berlin Heidelberg
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-53343882017-03-15 Endoleak detection using single-acquisition split-bolus dual-energy computer tomography (DECT) Javor, D. Wressnegger, A. Unterhumer, S. Kollndorfer, K. Nolz, R. Beitzke, D. Loewe, C. Eur Radiol Computed Tomography OBJECTIVES: To assess a single-phase, dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) with a split-bolus technique and reconstruction of virtual non-enhanced images for the detection of endoleaks after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). METHODS: Fifty patients referred for routine follow-up post-EVAR CT and a history of at least one post-EVAR follow-up CT examination using our standard biphasic (arterial and venous phase) routine protocol (which was used as the reference standard) were included in this prospective trial. An in-patient comparison and an analysis of the split-bolus protocol and the previously used double-phase protocol were performed with regard to differences in diagnostic accuracy, radiation dose, and image quality. RESULTS: The analysis showed a significant reduction of radiation dose of up to 42 %, using the single-acquisition split-bolus protocol, while maintaining a comparable diagnostic accuracy (primary endoleak detection rate of 96 %). Image quality between the two protocols was comparable and only slightly inferior for the split-bolus scan (2.5 vs. 2.4). CONCLUSIONS: Using the single-acquisition, split-bolus approach allows for a significant dose reduction while maintaining high image quality, resulting in effective endoleak identification. KEY POINTS: • A single-acquisition, split-bolus approach allows for a significant dose reduction. • Endoleak development is the most common complication after endovascular aortic repair (EVAR). • CT angiography is the imaging modality of choice for aortic aneurysm evaluation. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2016-07-19 2017 /pmc/articles/PMC5334388/ /pubmed/27436027 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-016-4480-6 Text en © The Author(s) 2016 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
spellingShingle Computed Tomography
Javor, D.
Wressnegger, A.
Unterhumer, S.
Kollndorfer, K.
Nolz, R.
Beitzke, D.
Loewe, C.
Endoleak detection using single-acquisition split-bolus dual-energy computer tomography (DECT)
title Endoleak detection using single-acquisition split-bolus dual-energy computer tomography (DECT)
title_full Endoleak detection using single-acquisition split-bolus dual-energy computer tomography (DECT)
title_fullStr Endoleak detection using single-acquisition split-bolus dual-energy computer tomography (DECT)
title_full_unstemmed Endoleak detection using single-acquisition split-bolus dual-energy computer tomography (DECT)
title_short Endoleak detection using single-acquisition split-bolus dual-energy computer tomography (DECT)
title_sort endoleak detection using single-acquisition split-bolus dual-energy computer tomography (dect)
topic Computed Tomography
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5334388/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27436027
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-016-4480-6
work_keys_str_mv AT javord endoleakdetectionusingsingleacquisitionsplitbolusdualenergycomputertomographydect
AT wressneggera endoleakdetectionusingsingleacquisitionsplitbolusdualenergycomputertomographydect
AT unterhumers endoleakdetectionusingsingleacquisitionsplitbolusdualenergycomputertomographydect
AT kollndorferk endoleakdetectionusingsingleacquisitionsplitbolusdualenergycomputertomographydect
AT nolzr endoleakdetectionusingsingleacquisitionsplitbolusdualenergycomputertomographydect
AT beitzked endoleakdetectionusingsingleacquisitionsplitbolusdualenergycomputertomographydect
AT loewec endoleakdetectionusingsingleacquisitionsplitbolusdualenergycomputertomographydect