Feasibility of extracellular volume quantification using dual-energy CT |
| |
| Affiliation: | 1. Medical University of South Carolina, Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Division of Cardiovascular Imaging, Charleston, SC, USA;2. University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Center for Medical Imaging - North East Netherlands, Groningen, the Netherlands;3. University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Dept of Radiology, Groningen, the Netherlands;4. Siemens Medical Solutions USA, Inc., Malvern, PA, USA;1. Department of Cardiovascular Imaging, Diagnóstico Maipú, Av Maipú 1668, Vicente López, B1602ABQ, Buenos Aires, Argentina;2. Baptist Hospital of Miami, Miami, Florida;3. Baptist Cardiac and Vascular Institute, Miami, Florida;1. Radiology and Imaging Sciences - National Institutes of Health Clinical Center, Bethesda, MD, USA;2. Department of Imaging and Pathology, Medical Imaging Research Centre, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium;3. Department of Radiological Sciences, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA;4. Department of Bioengineering, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA;5. Department of Radiology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI, USA;1. Department of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiological Science, Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea;2. Department of Veterinary Surgery, College of Veterinary Medicine, Konkuk University, Seoul, Korea;3. Erwin L. Hahn Institute for Magnetic Resonance Imaging, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany;4. Department of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiological Science, Gangnam Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea;5. Siemens AG Healthcare, Erlangen, Germany;6. Siemens Ltd., Seoul, Korea;1. Division of Radiology, Department of Pathophysiological Therapeutic Science, Tottori University Faculty of Medicine, Yonago City, Tottori 683-8504, Japan;2. Division of Molecular Medicine and Therapeutics, Department of Multidisciplinary Internal Medicine, Tottori University Faculty of Medicine, Yonago City, Tottori 683-8504, Japan;3. Tottori University Hospital, Department of Clinical Radiology, Yonago City, Tottori 683-8504, Japan;1. Barts Heart Centre, St. Bartholomew’s Hospital, London, United Kingdom;2. Institute of Cardiovascular Sciences, University College London, London, United Kingdom;3. Siemens Healthineers, Forchheim, Germany;4. William Harvey Research Institute, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom;5. John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford University Hospitals, Oxford, United Kingdom;6. Nuclear Medicine, Swansea Bay UHB, Port Talbot, United Kingdom;7. Minneapolis Heart Institute, Minneapolis, Minnesota;8. Institute of Nuclear Medicine, University College London, London, United Kingdom;9. NIHR University College London Hospitals Biomedical Research Centre, London, United Kingdom;10. National Amyloidosis Centre, University College London, London, United Kingdom;11. NIHR Barts Biomedical Research Centre, London, United Kingdom |
| |
| Abstract: | ObjectiveTo assess the feasibility of dual energy CT (DECT) to derive myocardial extracellular volume (ECV) and detect myocardial ECV differences without a non-contrast acquisition, compared to single energy CT (SECT).MethodsSubjects (n = 35) with focal fibrosis (n = 17), diffuse fibrosis (n = 10), and controls (n = 9) underwent non-contrast and delayed acquisitions to calculate SECT-ECV. DECT-ECV was calculated using the delayed acquisition and the derived virtual non-contrast images. In the control and diffuse fibrotic groups, the entire myocardium of the left ventricle was used to calculate ECV. Two ROIs were placed in the focal fibrotic group, one in normal and one in fibrotic myocardium.ResultsMedian ECV was 33.4% (IQR, 30.1–37.4) using SECT and 34.9% (IQR, 31.2–39.2) using DECT (p = 0.401). For both techniques, focal and diffuse fibrosis had significantly higher ECV values (all p < 0.021) than normal myocardium. There was no systematic bias between DECT and SECT (p = 0.348). SECT had a higher radiation dose (1.1 mSv difference) than DECT (p < 0.001).ConclusionECV can be measured using a DECT approach with only a delayed acquisition. The DECT approach provides similar results at a lower radiation dose compared to SECT. |
| |
| Keywords: | Dual energy CT ECV Fibrosis Myocardial infarct Cardiomyopathies CAD" },{" #name" :" keyword" ," $" :{" id" :" kwrd0040" }," $$" :[{" #name" :" text" ," _" :" Coronary Artery Disease DECT" },{" #name" :" keyword" ," $" :{" id" :" kwrd0050" }," $$" :[{" #name" :" text" ," _" :" Dual Energy Computed Tomography ECV" },{" #name" :" keyword" ," $" :{" id" :" kwrd0060" }," $$" :[{" #name" :" text" ," _" :" Extracellular Volume HU" },{" #name" :" keyword" ," $" :{" id" :" kwrd0070" }," $$" :[{" #name" :" text" ," _" :" Hounsfield Units MRI" },{" #name" :" keyword" ," $" :{" id" :" kwrd0080" }," $$" :[{" #name" :" text" ," _" :" Magnetic Resonance Imaging ROI" },{" #name" :" keyword" ," $" :{" id" :" kwrd0090" }," $$" :[{" #name" :" text" ," _" :" Region of Interest SECT" },{" #name" :" keyword" ," $" :{" id" :" kwrd0100" }," $$" :[{" #name" :" text" ," _" :" Single Energy Computed Tomography |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
