Image quality, contrast enhancement and radiation dose of electrocardiograph- versus non-electrocardiograph-triggered computed tomography angiography of the aorta

Introduction: Computed tomography angiography of the aorta (CTAA) is the modality of choice for investigating aortic disease. Our aim was to evaluate the image quality, contrast enhancement and radiation dose of electrocardiograph (ECG)-triggered and non-ECG-triggered CTAA on a 256-slice single-sour...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Ying Mei Wong, Ching Ching Ong, Chong Ri Liang, Choon Ann Tan, Lynette Li San Teo
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Wolters Kluwer – Medknow Publications 2024-02-01
Series:Singapore Medical Journal
Subjects:
Online Access:https://journals.lww.com/10.11622/smedj.2021166
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1823863769770491904
author Ying Mei Wong
Ching Ching Ong
Chong Ri Liang
Choon Ann Tan
Lynette Li San Teo
author_facet Ying Mei Wong
Ching Ching Ong
Chong Ri Liang
Choon Ann Tan
Lynette Li San Teo
author_sort Ying Mei Wong
collection DOAJ
description Introduction: Computed tomography angiography of the aorta (CTAA) is the modality of choice for investigating aortic disease. Our aim was to evaluate the image quality, contrast enhancement and radiation dose of electrocardiograph (ECG)-triggered and non-ECG-triggered CTAA on a 256-slice single-source CT scanner. This allows the requesting clinician and the radiologist to balance radiation risk and image quality. Methods: We retrospectively assessed the data of 126 patients who had undergone CTAA on a single-source CT scanner using ECG-triggered (group 1, n = 77) or non-ECG-triggered (group 2, n = 49) protocols. Radiation doses were compared. Qualitative (4-point scale) and quantitative image quality assessments were performed. Results: The mean volume CT dose index, dose length product and effective dose in group 1 were 12.4 ± 1.9 mGy, 765.8 ± 112.4 mGy cm and 13.0 ± 1.9 mSv, respectively. These were significantly higher compared to group 2 values (9.1 ± 2.6 mGy, 624.1 ± 174.8 mGy cm and 10.6 ± 3.0 mSv, respectively) (P < 0.001). Qualitative assessment showed the image quality at the aortic root–proximal ascending aorta was significantly higher in group 1 (median 3) than in group 2 (median 2, P < 0.001). Quantitative assessment showed significantly better mean arterial attenuation, signal-to-noise ratio and contrast-to-noise ratio in ECG-triggered CTAA compared to non-ECG-triggered CTAA. Conclusion: ECG-triggered CTAA in a single-source scanner has superior image quality and vessel attenuation of aortic root/ascending aorta, but a higher radiation dose of approximately 23%. Its use should be considered specifically when assessing aortic root/ascending aorta pathology.
format Article
id doaj-art-799187183b184581bc89da7e5d4ab484
institution Kabale University
issn 0037-5675
2737-5935
language English
publishDate 2024-02-01
publisher Wolters Kluwer – Medknow Publications
record_format Article
series Singapore Medical Journal
spelling doaj-art-799187183b184581bc89da7e5d4ab4842025-02-09T10:19:31ZengWolters Kluwer – Medknow PublicationsSingapore Medical Journal0037-56752737-59352024-02-01652849010.11622/smedj.2021166Image quality, contrast enhancement and radiation dose of electrocardiograph- versus non-electrocardiograph-triggered computed tomography angiography of the aortaYing Mei WongChing Ching OngChong Ri LiangChoon Ann TanLynette Li San TeoIntroduction: Computed tomography angiography of the aorta (CTAA) is the modality of choice for investigating aortic disease. Our aim was to evaluate the image quality, contrast enhancement and radiation dose of electrocardiograph (ECG)-triggered and non-ECG-triggered CTAA on a 256-slice single-source CT scanner. This allows the requesting clinician and the radiologist to balance radiation risk and image quality. Methods: We retrospectively assessed the data of 126 patients who had undergone CTAA on a single-source CT scanner using ECG-triggered (group 1, n = 77) or non-ECG-triggered (group 2, n = 49) protocols. Radiation doses were compared. Qualitative (4-point scale) and quantitative image quality assessments were performed. Results: The mean volume CT dose index, dose length product and effective dose in group 1 were 12.4 ± 1.9 mGy, 765.8 ± 112.4 mGy cm and 13.0 ± 1.9 mSv, respectively. These were significantly higher compared to group 2 values (9.1 ± 2.6 mGy, 624.1 ± 174.8 mGy cm and 10.6 ± 3.0 mSv, respectively) (P < 0.001). Qualitative assessment showed the image quality at the aortic root–proximal ascending aorta was significantly higher in group 1 (median 3) than in group 2 (median 2, P < 0.001). Quantitative assessment showed significantly better mean arterial attenuation, signal-to-noise ratio and contrast-to-noise ratio in ECG-triggered CTAA compared to non-ECG-triggered CTAA. Conclusion: ECG-triggered CTAA in a single-source scanner has superior image quality and vessel attenuation of aortic root/ascending aorta, but a higher radiation dose of approximately 23%. Its use should be considered specifically when assessing aortic root/ascending aorta pathology.https://journals.lww.com/10.11622/smedj.2021166aortic diseasescomputed tomography angiographyradiation dosageretrospective studiessignal-to-noise ratio
spellingShingle Ying Mei Wong
Ching Ching Ong
Chong Ri Liang
Choon Ann Tan
Lynette Li San Teo
Image quality, contrast enhancement and radiation dose of electrocardiograph- versus non-electrocardiograph-triggered computed tomography angiography of the aorta
Singapore Medical Journal
aortic diseases
computed tomography angiography
radiation dosage
retrospective studies
signal-to-noise ratio
title Image quality, contrast enhancement and radiation dose of electrocardiograph- versus non-electrocardiograph-triggered computed tomography angiography of the aorta
title_full Image quality, contrast enhancement and radiation dose of electrocardiograph- versus non-electrocardiograph-triggered computed tomography angiography of the aorta
title_fullStr Image quality, contrast enhancement and radiation dose of electrocardiograph- versus non-electrocardiograph-triggered computed tomography angiography of the aorta
title_full_unstemmed Image quality, contrast enhancement and radiation dose of electrocardiograph- versus non-electrocardiograph-triggered computed tomography angiography of the aorta
title_short Image quality, contrast enhancement and radiation dose of electrocardiograph- versus non-electrocardiograph-triggered computed tomography angiography of the aorta
title_sort image quality contrast enhancement and radiation dose of electrocardiograph versus non electrocardiograph triggered computed tomography angiography of the aorta
topic aortic diseases
computed tomography angiography
radiation dosage
retrospective studies
signal-to-noise ratio
url https://journals.lww.com/10.11622/smedj.2021166
work_keys_str_mv AT yingmeiwong imagequalitycontrastenhancementandradiationdoseofelectrocardiographversusnonelectrocardiographtriggeredcomputedtomographyangiographyoftheaorta
AT chingchingong imagequalitycontrastenhancementandradiationdoseofelectrocardiographversusnonelectrocardiographtriggeredcomputedtomographyangiographyoftheaorta
AT chongriliang imagequalitycontrastenhancementandradiationdoseofelectrocardiographversusnonelectrocardiographtriggeredcomputedtomographyangiographyoftheaorta
AT choonanntan imagequalitycontrastenhancementandradiationdoseofelectrocardiographversusnonelectrocardiographtriggeredcomputedtomographyangiographyoftheaorta
AT lynettelisanteo imagequalitycontrastenhancementandradiationdoseofelectrocardiographversusnonelectrocardiographtriggeredcomputedtomographyangiographyoftheaorta