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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |