Low-dose multidetector CT angiography in the evaluation of infrarenal aorta and peripheral arterial occlusive disease.

PURPOSE To investigate the ionizing radiation dose, image quality, and diagnostic performance of computed tomographic (CT) angiography of the peripheral arteries with three different CT angiographic acquisition protocols, with use of pretreatment digital subtraction angiography (DSA) as the reference standard. MATERIALS AND METHODS The study was approved by the institutional review board and performed in agreement with the 1990 Declaration of Helsinki and subsequent amendments. Each patient provided informed consent before undergoing CT. The authors performed a prospective, single-center, randomized comparison of three different x-ray exposure CT acquisition protocols in 60 randomized patients with peripheral arterial occlusive disease referred for 64-section multidetector CT angiography of the lower limb (0.625-mm collimation, intravenous administration of 100 mL of iomeprol [400 mg iodine per milliliter] at 4 mL/sec). The acquisition protocols were performed with (a) 120 kVp and a noise index of 26 (moderate noise reduction [MNR]), referred to as the 120-kVp MNR group; (b) 80 kVp and a noise index of 26, referred to as the 80-kVp MNR group; and (c) 80 kVp and a noise index of 30 (high noise reduction [HNR]), referred to as the 80-kVp HNR group. Axial and three-dimensional (3D) images were qualitatively and quantitatively compared by using the overall F test and pairwise comparisons. The X(2) test was used to compare the three protocols in terms of diagnostic performance in patients who also underwent DSA before an interventional procedure. RESULTS Significantly higher attenuation values were obtained in the vessels with the 80-kVp MNR and 80-kVp HNR acquisition protocols. No significant differences were noted in terms of image quality with either axial source images or 3D reconstructions. Likewise, no significant differences were found among the three protocols in terms of noise throughout the peripheral vasculature. Finally, no significant differences were found among the three groups with regard to diagnostic performance. Overall dose reductions of 48% and 61% were obtained for the 80-kVp MNR and 80-kVp HNR protocols, respectively. CONCLUSION Substantial reductions of radiation dose are achievable at multidetector CT angiography of the peripheral arteries without compromising image quality and diagnostic performance if acquisition protocols are modified appropriately and used in conjunction with a contrast material containing a high concentration of iodine.

[1]  J. Carr,et al.  Technical considerations for lower limb multidetector computed tomographic angiography , 2011, Vascular medicine.

[2]  F. Gleeson,et al.  The risks of radiation exposure related to diagnostic imaging and how to minimise them , 2011, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[3]  R. Smith-Bindman Is computed tomography safe? , 2010, The New England journal of medicine.

[4]  Rebecca S Lewis,et al.  Projected cancer risks from computed tomographic scans performed in the United States in 2007. , 2009, Archives of internal medicine.

[5]  D. Miglioretti,et al.  Radiation dose associated with common computed tomography examinations and the associated lifetime attributable risk of cancer. , 2009, Archives of internal medicine.

[6]  M. Koelemay,et al.  Diagnostic performance of computed tomography angiography in peripheral arterial disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. , 2009, JAMA.

[7]  S. Schoenberg,et al.  Dual-Energy CT Angiography in Peripheral Arterial Occlusive Disease , 2009, CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology.

[8]  A. Cotroneo,et al.  Four-Detector Row Computed Tomographic Angiography in the Evaluation of Infrarenal Aorta and Peripheral Arterial Occlusive Disease: Influence of Contrast Medium Concentration , 2008, Journal of computer assisted tomography.

[9]  D. Brenner,et al.  Cancer risks from diagnostic radiology. , 2008, The British journal of radiology.

[10]  A. Stadler,et al.  Multidetector CT angiography in the assessment of peripheral arterial occlusive disease: accuracy in detecting the severity, number, and length of stenoses , 2008, European Radiology.

[11]  D. Brenner,et al.  Computed tomography--an increasing source of radiation exposure. , 2007, The New England journal of medicine.

[12]  F. Wacker,et al.  16-MDCT angiography of aortoiliac and lower extremity arteries: comparison with digital subtraction angiography. , 2007, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[13]  H. Goo,et al.  The influences of tube voltage and scan direction on combined tube current modulation: a phantom study , 2006, Pediatric Radiology.

[14]  Filippo Cademartiri,et al.  High Iodine Concentration Contrast Material for Noninvasive Multislice Computed Tomography Coronary Angiography: Iopromide 370 Versus Iomeprol 400 , 2006, Investigative radiology.

[15]  John V. White,et al.  ACC/AHA 2005 Practice Guidelines for the management of patients with peripheral arterial disease (lower extremity, renal, mesenteric, and abdominal aortic): a collaborative report from the American Association for Vascular Surgery/Society for Vascular Surgery, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography , 2006, Circulation.

[16]  S. Wildermuth,et al.  Sixteen-detector row CT angiography for lower-leg arterial occlusive disease: analysis of section width. , 2005, Radiology.

[17]  S. Wildermuth,et al.  Aortoiliac and lower extremity arteries assessed with 16-detector row CT angiography: prospective comparison with digital subtraction angiography. , 2005, Radiology.

[18]  Theo Stijnen,et al.  Intravenous contrast material administration at helical 16-detector row CT coronary angiography: effect of iodine concentration on vascular attenuation. , 2005, Radiology.

[19]  C. Catalano,et al.  Infrarenal aortic and lower-extremity arterial disease: diagnostic performance of multi-detector row CT angiography. , 2004, Radiology.

[20]  P. Schnyder,et al.  Management of patient dose and image noise in routine pediatric CT abdominal examinations , 2004, European Radiology.

[21]  K. H. Tay,et al.  Multidetector CT angiography of the aortoiliac system and lower extremities: a prospective comparison with digital subtraction angiography. , 2003, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[22]  Ahuva Engel,et al.  Multidetector CT angiography of peripheral vascular disease: a prospective comparison with intraarterial digital subtraction angiography. , 2003, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[23]  N. Young,et al.  Complications with Outpatient Angiography and Interventional Procedures , 2002, CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology.

[24]  G D Rubin,et al.  Multi-detector row CT angiography of lower extremity arterial inflow and runoff: initial experience. , 2001, Radiology.

[25]  A. Hofman,et al.  Determinants of peripheral arterial disease in the elderly: the Rotterdam study. , 2000, Archives of internal medicine.

[26]  N. Hertzer The Natural History of Peripheral Vascular Disease: Implications for Its Management , 1991, Circulation.

[27]  M. Reiser,et al.  Optimization of cardiac MSCT contrast injection protocols: dependency of the main bolus contrast density on test bolus parameters and patients' body weight. , 2008, Academic radiology.

[28]  Shoki Takahashi,et al.  MDCT compared with digital subtraction angiography for assessment of lower extremity arterial occlusive disease: importance of reviewing cross-sectional images. , 2004, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.