Aorta and iliac arteries: Single versus multiple detector-row helical CT angiography
Aorta and iliac arteries: Single versus multiple detector-row helical CT angiography
复制标题
DOI：
10.1148/radiology.215.3.r00jn18670
复制
发表时间：
2000-06-01
期刊：
影响因子：
19.7
通讯作者：
Sofilos, MC
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Rubin, GD;Shiau, MC;Sofilos, MC
目得：比较单通道与四通道螺旋计算机断层扫描（CT）血管造影术。材料和方法：48例主动脉瘤或夹层患者进行了四通道和单通道CT血管造影术。扫描对覆盖了隔膜的胸部入口（n = 10）和腹腔上腹主动脉（n = 19）或股动脉分叉的胸部入口（n = 19）。对于四通道CT，标称切片厚度和螺距分别为2.5 mm和6.0，对于单通道CT，肾下主动脉为3.0 mm和2.0，股动脉为5.0 mm和2.0。比较了有效切片厚度、扫描持续时间、扫描覆盖范围、碘化造影剂剂量和平均髂动脉衰减。数据总结为速度（覆盖范围/持续时间）、扫描效率（速度/切片厚度）和对比效率结果：在四通道与单通道CT中，CT血管造影的速度是2.6倍，扫描效率是4.1倍，对比效率是2.5倍，对比剂剂量减少（平均57%; 97 vs 232 mL）主动脉增强无显著变化，切片更薄（平均40%; 3.2 vs 5.3 mm），尽管扫描持续时间缩短了59%（22秒对56秒）。造影剂剂量显著减少，扫描持续时间缩短，并且四通道CT断层摄影术与单通道CT断层摄影术相比有效截面更窄。单通道CT脑血管造影没有优势。
PURPOSE: To compare single- versus four-channel helical computed tomographic (CT) aortography.MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-eight patients with aortic aneurysm or dissection underwent four- and one-channel CT angiography. Scan pairs covered the thoracic inlet to the diaphragm (n = 10) and supraceliac abdominal aorta (n = 19) or thoracic inlet (n = 19) to the femoral arterial bifurcations. For four-channel CT, nominal section thickness and pitch were 2.5 mm and 6.0, respectively, and for one-channel CT, 3.0 mm and 2.0 to the infrarenal aorta and 5.0 mm and 2.0 to the femoral arteries. Effective section thickness, scanning duration, scanning coverage, dose of iodinated contrast material, and mean aortoiliac attenuation were compared. Data were summarized as speed (coverage/duration), scanning efficiency (speed/section thickness), and contrast efficiency (mean aortic attenuation/dose of contrast material).RESULTS: At four- versus one-channel CT, CT angiography was 2.6 times faster, scanning efficiency was 4.1 times greater, contrast efficiency was 2.5 times greater, dose of contrast material was reduced (mean, 57%; 97 vs 232 mL) without a significant change in aortic enhancement, and sections were thinner (mean, 40%; 3.2 vs 5.3 mm) despite a 59% shorter scanning duration (22 vs 56 seconds).CONCLUSION: Substantially reduced doses of contrast medium, shorter scanning durations, and narrower effective sections result with four- versus one-channel CT aortography. No advantages of one-channel CT aortography were demonstrated.