ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: Electrocardiogram-gated imaging combined with multi-detector row computed tomography (MDCT) has reduced cardiac motion artifacts, but it was not practical in the emergency setting. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the ability of a high-pitch, 128-slice dual-source CT (DSCT) scanner to reduce motion artifacts in patients admitted to the emergency room. METHODS: This study comprised 100 patients suspected of having thoracic aorta lesions. We examined 47 patients with the 128-slice DSCT scanner (DSCT group), and 53 patients were examined with a 64-slice MDCT scanner (MDCT group). Six anatomic areas in the thoracic aorta were evaluated. RESULTS: Computed tomography images in the DSCT group were distinct, and significant differences were observed in images of all areas between the 2 groups except for the descending aorta. CONCLUSIONS: The high-pitch DSCT scanner can reduce motion artifacts of the thoracic aorta and enable radiological diagnosis even in patients with tachycardia and without breath hold.
Subject(s)
Angiography/methods , Aorta, Thoracic/diagnostic imaging , Aortic Diseases/diagnostic imaging , Artifacts , Radiography, Dual-Energy Scanned Projection/methods , Radiography, Thoracic/methods , Tomography, X-Ray Computed/methods , Aged , Female , Humans , Male , Motion , Radiographic Image Enhancement/methods , Reproducibility of Results , Sensitivity and SpecificityABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Evaluation of detection of lung nodules by C-arm CT (CACT) is important before this procedure can be used to guide percutaneous lung interventions. PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy of CACT with CT in the detection of pulmonary nodules using a phantom lung. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A phantom lung containing 12 phantom nodules in four sizes (5 mm/8 mm/10 mm/12 mm) and three CT values (one solid nodule, +100 HU; two ground glass nodules, -630 and -800 HU) was used. Six sessions of CACT (slice thickness 4.5 mm) and CT (slice thickness 5 mm) were performed. In each session, the locations of nodules were arbitrarily changed in the phantom. Three radiologists assessed the detection of a total of 72 nodules. Statistical analysis was performed for the sensitivity and positive predictive value of lung nodules between CACT and CT by the McNemar test and paired t-test (P < 0.05). RESULTS: Sensitivity did not differ between CACT and CT, respectively (reader 1, 82% vs. 88%, P = 0.22; reader 2, 82% vs. 78%, P = 0.37; reader 3, 79% vs. 83%, P = 0.48). For nodules of 8 mm or larger, the sensitivity increased for each reader and showed no significant difference between CACT vs. CT. The positive predictive value did not differ between CACT and CT. CONCLUSION: In this phantom study, CT and CACT show similar sensitivity for the detection of pulmonary nodules. CACT could be used in percutaneous interventional procedures in the lungs.