Indirect CT Venography at 80 kVp with Sinogram-Affirmed Iterative Reconstruction Compared to 120 kVp with Filtered Back Projection: Assessment of Image Quality and Radiation Dose.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the image quality and radiation dose of indirect computed tomographic venography (CTV) using 80 kVp with sinogram-affirmed iterative reconstruction (SAFIRE) and 120 kVp with filtered back projection (FBP). MATERIALS AND METHODS:This retrospective study was approved by our institution and informed consent was waived. Sixty-one consecutive patients (M: F = 27: 34, mean age 60 ± 16, mean BMI 23.6 ± 3.6 kg/m2) underwent pelvic and lower extremity CTVs [group A (n = 31, 120 kVp, reconstructed with FBP) vs. group B (n = 30, 80 kVp, reconstructed with SAFIRE)]. The vascular enhancement, image noise, contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), and signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) were compared. Subjective image analysis for image quality and noise was performed by two radiologists. Radiation dose was compared between the two groups. RESULTS:Compared with group A, higher mean vascular enhancement was observed in the group B (group A vs. B, 118.8 ± 15.7 HU vs. 178.6 ± 39.6 HU, p 0.05). The subjective image noise was higher in the group B (p = 0.036 in reader 1, p = 0.005 in reader 2). The inter-observer reliability for assessing subjective image quality was good (ICC 0.746~0.784, p < 0.001). The mean CT dose index volume (CTDIvol) and mean dose length product (DLP) were significantly lower in group B than group A [CTDIvol, 6.4 ± 1.3 vs. 2.2 ± 2.2 mGy (p < 0.001); DLP, 499.1 ± 116.0 vs. 133.1 ± 45.7 mGy × cm (p < 0.001)]. CONCLUSIONS:CTV using 80 kVp combined with SAFIRE provides lower radiation dose and improved CNR compared to CTV using 120 kVp with FBP.