An Intra-Individual Comparison of Low-keV Photon-Counting CT versus Energy-Integrating-Detector CT Angiography of the Aorta
Jan-Lucca Hennes, Henner Huflage, Jan‐Peter Grunz, Viktor Hartung, Anne Marie Augustin, Theresa Sophie Patzer, Pauline Pannenbecker, Bernhard Petritsch, Thorsten Alexander Bley, Philipp Gruschwitz
Abstract
This retrospective study aims to provide an intra-individual comparison of aortic CT angiographies (CTAs) using first-generation photon-counting-detector CT (PCD-CT) and third-generation energy-integrating-detector CT (EID-CT). High-pitch CTAs were performed with both scanners and equal contrast-agent protocols. EID-CT employed automatic tube voltage selection (90/100 kVp) with reference tube current of 434/350 mAs, whereas multi-energy PCD-CT scans were generated with fixed tube voltage (120 kVp), image quality level of 64, and reconstructed as 55 keV monoenergetic images. For image quality assessment, contrast-to-noise ratios (CNRs) were calculated, and subjective evaluation (overall quality, luminal contrast, vessel sharpness, blooming, and beam hardening) was performed independently by three radiologists. Fifty-seven patients (12 women, 45 men) were included with a median interval between examinations of 12.7 months (interquartile range 11.1 months). Using manufacturer-recommended scan protocols resulted in a substantially lower radiation dose in PCD-CT (size-specific dose estimate: 4.88 ± 0.48 versus 6.28 ± 0.50 mGy, p < 0.001), while CNR was approximately 50% higher (41.11 ± 8.68 versus 27.05 ± 6.73, p < 0.001). Overall image quality and luminal contrast were deemed superior in PCD-CT (p < 0.001). Notably, EID-CT allowed for comparable vessel sharpness (p = 0.439) and less pronounced blooming and beam hardening (p < 0.001). Inter-rater agreement was good to excellent (0.58–0.87). Concluding, aortic PCD-CTAs facilitate increased image quality with significantly lower radiation dose compared to EID-CTAs.