Improved Pulmonary Artery Evaluation Using High-Pitch Photon-Counting CT Compared to High-Pitch Conventional or Routine-Pitch Conventional Dual-Energy CT.

Abstract

Objective: Pulmonary CT angiography (CTA) to detect pulmonary emboli can be performed using conventional dual-source CT with single-energy acquisition at high-pitch (high-pitch conventional CT), which minimizes motion artifacts, or routine-pitch, dual-energy acquisitions (routine-pitch conventional DECT), which maximize iodine signal. We compared iodine signal, radiation dose, and motion artifacts of pulmonary CTA between these conventional CT modalities and dual-source photon-counting detector CT with high-pitch, multienergy acquisitions (high-pitch photon-counting CT).

Methods: Consecutive clinically indicated pulmonary CTA exams were collected. CT number/noise was measured from the main to right lower lobe segmental pulmonary arteries using 120 kV threshold low, 120 kV, and mixed kV (0.6 linear blend) images. Three radiologists reviewed anonymized, randomized exams, rating them using a 4- or 5-point Likert scale (1 = worst, and 4/5 = best) for contrast enhancement in pulmonary arteries, motion artifacts in aortic root to subsegmental pulmonary arteries, lung image quality; pulmonary blood volume (PBV) map image quality (for multienergy or dual-energy exams), and contribution to reader confidence.

Results: One hundred fifty patients underwent high-pitch photon-counting CT (n = 50), high-pitch conventional CT (n = 50), and routine-pitch conventional DECT (n = 50). High-pitch photon-counting CT had lower radiation dose (CTDI vol : 8.1 ± 2.5 vs 9.6 ± 6.8 and 16.2 ± 8.5 mGy, respectively; P < 0.001), and routine-pitch conventional DECT had significantly less contrast ( P < 0.009). CT number and CNR measurements were significantly greater at high-pitch photon-counting CT ( P < 0.001). Across readers, high-pitch photon-counting CT demonstrated significantly higher subjective contrast enhancement in the pulmonary arteries compared to the other modalities (4.7 ± 0.6 vs 4.4 ± 0.7 vs 4.3 ± 0.7; P = 0.011) and lung image quality (3.4 ± 0.5 vs 3.1 ± 0.5 vs 3.1 ± 0.5; P = 0.013). High-pitch photon-counting CT and high-pitch conventional CT had fewer motion artifacts at all levels compared to DECT ( P < 0.001). High-pitch photon-counting CT PBV maps had superior image quality ( P < 0.001) and contribution to reader confidence ( P < 0.001) compared to routine-pitch conventional DECT.

Conclusion: High-pitch photon-counting pulmonary CTA demonstrated higher contrast in pulmonary arteries at lower radiation doses with improved lung image quality and fewer motion artifacts compared to high-pitch conventional CT and routine-pitch conventional dual-energy CT.