Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 197
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3165
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once
98%
921
2 minutes
20
Objective: To investigate the objective performance and subjective image quality of lower extremity CT angiography (CTA) in peripheral artery disease (PAD) through comparison of the first-generation photon-counting CT (PCCT) technology and the third-generation dual source energy-integrating detector CT (DECT) technology.
Materials And Methods: Patients who underwent a CTA either on a PCCT or on a DECT were included in this retrospective analysis. All included patients received a digital subtraction angiography (DSA) as reference standard for stenosis grading. Virtual monoenergetic image data sets were reconstructed at 40, 45, 50, 55, and 60 keV. The noise, the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), and the contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) of vascular structures, as well as the subjective image quality using a standardized 5-point Likert Scale, were determined. Finally, the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of the stenotic disease detection for either technology (DECT and PCCT) were analyzed.
Results: PCCT angiography was performed in 50 PAD patients (31 males, mean age 76.16 ± 10.26), and DECT angiography was pursued in 50 PAD patients as well (29 males, mean age 74.0 ± 14.26). PCCT reached significantly higher CNR compared with DECT in all assessed arterial territories [eg, 27.84 (IQR: 22.57 to 34.66) vs 17.25 (IQR: 12.12 to 23.71), at the iliac arterial vasculature at 40 keV, P < 0.001]. Image quality and contrast were rated significantly higher for PCCT compared with DECT [eg, mean vessel contrast 5 (IQR: 4 to 5) vs 4 (IQR: 4 to 4)], at the calf arterial vasculature at 40 keV, P <0.001. Overall sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for PCCT were 96%, 97%, and 97%, respectively, in comparison to 93%, 96%, and 94%, respectively, for DECT image data sets at 55 keV.
Conclusion: PCCT offers superior objective performance and better subjective image quality compared with DECT. Hence, PCCT angiography is improving cross-sectional PAD imaging.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/RLI.0000000000001230 | DOI Listing |