Introduction
Mortality among patients with non-high-risk pulmonary embolism (PE) varies from 2 %
to 8 % [1 ], depending on possibly existing right ventricular dysfunction (RVD). RVD is the
main predictor of short-term mortality in patients with acute PE, leading to secondary
hemodynamic instability [2 ]. Patients with acute RVD require intensive care unit monitoring and might benefit
from early thrombolysis or invasive therapies [3 ]. Therefore, it is essential to assess RV function shortly after the diagnosis of
PE. The current ESC guidelines (2014) recommend imaging techniques (computed tomography
(CT), echocardiography) and cardiac laboratory biomarkers (Troponin I or T, brain-natriuretic
peptide (BNP)) to assess the degree of RV strain. Biomarkers for RVD show a high negative
predictive value (NPV) with a low positive predictive value (PPV) [4 ]. For risk stratification, biomarkers should be combined with CT or echocardiographic
measurements [4 ]. One advantage of echocardiography is the possibility to monitor the clinical course
and therapeutic success [5 ]. On the other hand, echocardiography might not be available 24/7 in every hospital
and requires skilled examiners. Within this context, it has been demonstrated that
patients with PE who are admitted on weekends have a significantly higher short-term
mortality than patients admitted on weekdays [6 ].
Computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA) signs of RVD, such as RV/left ventricular
(LV) ratio > 0.9, are associated with an adverse outcome [7 ]. The main advantage of a CT-based assessment of RVD is that the data is already
available after the diagnosis of PE. However, CTPA images are not ECG-synchronized
and picture the heart at an accidental point during the R-R´ interval. This might
lead to a possible over-/underestimation of the real RV load.
Several studies tried to solve this problem in the past few years. The potential benefit
of additional cardiac ECG-synchronized imaging always weighed against the additive
amount of contrast agent and radiation dose [8 ]
[9 ]. With the introduction of ultra-high pitch imaging, CTPA studies can be performed
in less than 1 second. These fast acquisition techniques open the field for additional
subsequent scanning after the CTPA study using the same contrast bolus.
The aim of this study was to evaluate a high-pitch CTPA protocol that is subsequently
followed by low-dose ECG-gated cardiac CT with a reduced tube current used for the
assessment of RVD.
Materials and Methods
Patient population
The HIPAA-compliant study protocol, which is in accordance to the Declaration of Helsinki,
was approved by our local ethics committee. Written informed consent was obtained
from all patients following a full explanation of the purpose of the study as well
as of the risks and discomforts associated with participation.
62 patients (33 female, age 65.1 ± 17.5 years) who presented in our emergency department
with suspected PE were prospectively included in this study. All patients underwent
CT imaging including high-pitch CTPA that was subsequently followed by a low-dose
retrospectively ECG-gated functional cardiac examination (4D-cCT).
Age, preexisting conditions and risk factors for deep venous thrombosis or PE were
recorded. Exclusion criteria were pregnancy, clinical instability and age < 18y. [Table 1 ] summarizes the patients’ baseline characteristics.
Table 1
Patient characteristics and preexisting conditions.Tab. 1 Patientencharakteristiken und Vorerkrankungen.
patient characteristics
sex (male/female)
28/32
age (years)
64.63 ± 17.5
preexisting conditions
% of all patients
number of patients with PE
number of patients without PE
p-value
preexisting DVT
11.7
5
2
0.0004*
CHF
38.3
3
20
1.0000
RHI (without preexisting PE)
20.0
0
12
0.1823
cardiac decompensation (not PE-related)
18.3
0
11
0.1888
cardiomyopathy
8.3
1
4
0.5768
coronary heart disease
38.3
2
21
0.4598
thrombophilia
3.3
1
1
0.2797
renal insufficiency
28.3
4
13
0.2564
diabetes mellitus
20.0
4
8
0.0689
COPD
26.7
1
15
0.4215
arrhythmia
48.3
5
24
0.7270
arterial hypertension
61.7
6
31
1.0000
nicotine abuse
23.3
1
13
0.6705
malignoma
28.3
3
14
0.7035
recent surgery (within 3 months)
11.7
1
6
1.0000
PE = pulmonary embolism, DVT = deep vein thrombosis, CHF = congestive heart failure,
RHI = right heart insufficiency, COPD = chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
CT protocol
A high-pitch CTPA examination that was subsequently followed by 4D-cCT was performed
in all patients included in the study. Contrast enhancement was achieved by injecting
a single contrast bolus of 80 cc (Iomeron 400, Bracco Imaging S.p.A., Milan, Italy)
via an antecubital vein access followed by a saline flush of 30 cc, both at a flow
rate of 4 ml/s. One bolus was used for both parts of the protocol ([Fig. 1 ]).
Fig. 1 Schematic representation of the evaluated dual protocol for diagnosis of pulmonary
embolism and functional assessment of cardiac function. Please note that the tube
voltage is turned down over the whole cardiac cycle (blue line in ECG) which is different
from a standard retrospective cardiac spiral in which the full tube current is usually
applied over 40 – 80 % of the cardiac cycle.Abb. 1 Schematische Darstellung des evaluierten dualen CT Protokolls zur Diagnose der Lungenembolie
und Auswertung der Herzfunktion. Hinweis: Der Röhrenstrom ist über den gesamten Herzzyklus
reduziert (blaue Linie im EKG), was eine Abweichung zu retrospektiven Standard Aufnahmen
darstellt, in welchen üblicherweise der volle Röhrenstrom über 40 – 80 % des Herzzyklus
appliziert wird.
55 examinations were performed on a 2nd generation 2 × 128 slice dual-source CT (DSCT) system (SOMATOM Definition Flash,
Siemens Healthineers, Forchheim, Germany). The remaining 7 examinations were performed
on a 3rd generation 2 × 192-slice DSCT scanner (SOMATOM Force, Siemens Healthineers, Forchheim,
Germany).
CT pulmonary angiography
The scan parameters for the 2nd generation DSCT system were as follows: 120 kV tube voltage, 80 mAs reference tube
current using automated tube current modulation, pitch factor of 3, collimation of
128 × 0.6 mm, gantry rotation time of 0.28 s and reconstructed slice thickness of
1 mm. The scan parameters for the 3rd generation DSCT system were: 70 kV tube voltage, 140 mAs reference tube current using
automated tube current modulation, pitch factor of 3, collimation of 192 × 0.6 mm,
gantry rotation time of 0.25 s and reconstructed slice thickness of 1 mm.
Bolus tracking was used to define the onset of scanning (> 80 HU in the pulmonary
trunk).
4D-cCT
Cardiac ECG-gated scanning started with a delay of 5 s after the end of the CTPA acquisition
and was performed during inspiratory breath-hold. In contrast to standard retrospectively
ECG-gated coronary CTA, the tube current of the ECG-gated tube current modulation
was reduced by 80 % throughout the entire cardiac cycle without any tube current peak
in order to solely evaluate cardiac function with a minimum radiation dose.
The scan parameters for the 2nd generation DSCT system were: 120 kV tube voltage, 50 mAs reference tube current using
automated tube current modulation, pitch factor of 0.23, collimation of 128 × 0.6 mm,
gantry rotation time of 0.28 s and reconstructed slice thickness of 1.5 mm. The scan
parameters for the 3rd generation DSCT system were as follows: 70 kV tube voltage, 20 mAs reference tube
current using automated tube current modulation, pitch factor of 0.38, collimation
of 192 × 0.6 mm, gantry rotation time of 0.25 s and reconstructed slice thickness
of 1.5 mm.
Image post-processing
For image reconstruction, iterative reconstruction algorithms were used (SAFIRE (Siemens
Healthineers, Forchheim, Germany) for the 2nd generation DSCT system with a dedicated soft tissue kernel (I31f) and a lung kernel
(I79f) for CTPA and an I26 f kernel for 4D-cCT, ADMIRE (Siemens Healthineers, Forchheim,
Germany) for the 3rd generation DSCT system with a Bv36 and Bv40 kernel for CTPA and a Bv40 kernel for
4D-cCT.
The 4D-cCT data was reconstructed in 5 % intervals throughout the cardiac cycle.
Measurements
CT examinations were analyzed by 2 radiologists (7 years and 2 years of CT imaging
experience) using Osirix Pro (Version 5.0.2; Aycan, Würzburg, Germany). PE was diagnosed
in the case of the presence of at least one filling defect of contrast material in
the pulmonary artery tree on the CTPA study.
The volume CT dose index (CTDI vol) and dose length product (DLP) were recorded in
all patients. To calculate the effective dose, the DLP was multiplied by a conversion
coefficient (k) of 0.014 mSv/(mGy×cm) as recommended by the European Guidelines of
Multislice Computed Tomography [10 ].
For the assessment of objective image quality, the attenuation was measured as Hounsfield
units (HUs) within various regions of interest (ROIs). On CTPA, one ROI was set in
each of the main pulmonary arteries, an apical sub-segmental branch of the right pulmonary
artery, a basal sub-segmental branch of the left pulmonary artery and the autochthonous
back muscles. On 4D-cCT, one ROI was set in each of the cardiac chambers (right atrium
(RA), right ventricle (RV), left atrium (LA) and left ventricle (LV)) as well as the
descending aorta and liver. These ROIs were used to subsequently calculate the signal-to-noise
ratio (SNR) and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR). The subjective image quality for CTPA
and 4D-cCT was assessed by a board-certified radiologist with 10 years of cardiac
CT imaging experience. Visualization of the ventricular cavities/pulmonary arteries
and image noise were evaluated using a five-point Likert scale (a score of 1 indicated
poor visualization/unacceptably high image noise; a score of 2 fair visualization/above-average
image noise; a score of 3 moderate visualization/average image noise; a score of 4
good visualization/less than average image noise; and a score of 5 excellent visualization/minimal
image noise), artifacts were evaluated using a four-point Likert scale (a score of
1 indicated no artifacts; a score of 2 slight artifacts; a score of 3 definite artifacts;
and a score of 4 non-evaluable pulmonary arteries/ventricular cavities).
Ventricular function was assessed on the dynamic 4D-cCT images using a dedicated post-processing
workstation (Syngo.Via VA30, Siemens Healthineers, Forchheim, Germany). Images were
adjusted to a 2-chamber and 4-chamber view of the heart. End-systolic and end-diastolic
volumes of both the right ventricle (RV) and left ventricle (LV) were measured and
used to calculate the ejection fraction (EF). End-systole was defined as the smallest
dimension of the ventricular cavity during the cardiac cycle. Correspondingly, end-diastole
was defined as the point during cardiac cycle at which the ventricle showed its largest
dimension. For volumetric measurements, endocardial contours were drawn automatically.
Papillary muscles were included in the ventricular cavity. If necessary, manual corrections
of the automatically drawn contours were made.
After the measurement of the EF of both ventricles, the ratio of right ventricular
ejection fraction (RVEF) and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (RVEF/LVEF)
was calculated to rule out the influence of gender, age and body surface area on EF.
Statistical analysis
Statistical analysis was performed using JMP 11.0 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA).
Continuous variables are expressed as mean ± standard deviation (SD), and categorical
variables are presented as frequencies with percentages. To prove normal distribution
of continuous variables, the Shapiro-Wilk test was used. If data were normally distributed,
a two-tailed Student’s t-test was used to compare two groups. Otherwise, the Mann-Whitney
U-test was used. A p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Results
PE diagnosis
A total of 62 CT studies were performed. Two patients were excluded from statistical
analysis. One study was of non-diagnostic image quality because of insufficient contrast
enhancement of the ventricular cavities – for an automated analysis as well as for
manual assessment. The other study was performed in a patient with status post PE
(one month ago) and so retrospectively did not fulfill the inclusion criteria. 60
CT studies remained for the data analysis.
PE was diagnosed in 9 patients, including 7 central and 2 peripheral PEs.
Radiation dose
The mean effective dose was 4.22 mSv ± 2.05 mSv (3.72 mSv – 5.29 mSv), the mean overall
DLP was 301.39 mGy×cm ± 146.71 mGy×cm (262.81 mGy×cm – 339.97 mGy×cm) and the mean
overall CTDI vol was 18.23 mGy ± 8.76 mGy (15.92 mGy – 20.53 mGy). For additional
dose parameters, see [Table 2 ].
Table 2
Mean, SD and 95 % confidence interval for effective dose, tube current-exposure time
product (mAs), tube potential (kV), volumetric CT dose index (CTDI vol) and dose length
product (DLP). Difference between 2nd and 3rd generation DSCT.Tab. 2 Mittelwerte, SD und 95 % Konfidenzintervall für die effektive Strahlendosis, Röhrenstromzeitprodukt
(mAs), Röhrenspannung (kV), CT Dosis Index (CTDI vol) und Dosis-Längen-Produkt (DLP).
Statistischer Unterschied zwischen 2. und 3. Generations-DSCT.
parameter
all studies mean ± SD (95 % confidence interval)
2nd generation DSCT (n = 53)
mean ± SD (95 % confidence interval)
3rd generation DSCT (n = 5)
mean ± SD (95 % confidence interval)
p-value
overall effective dose (mSv)
4.22 ± 2.05
(3.68 – 4.76)
4.4 ± 2.00
(3.87 – 4.98)
2.06 ± 1.24
(0.52 – 3.60)
0.0078*
effective dose 4D-cCT (mSv)
1.91 ± 1.10
(1.62 – 2.20)
1.99 ± 1.09
(1.69 – 2.29)
1.14 ± 0.90
(0.02 – 2.25)
0.0403*
effective dose CTPA (mSv)
2.18 ± 1.11
(1.88 – 2.47)
2.29 ± 1.10
(1.99 – 2.59)
0.99 ± 0.29
(0.63 – 1.35)
0.0026*
overall DLP (mGy×cm)
301.39 ± 146.71
(262.81 – 339.97)
315.94 ± 143.13
(276.49 – 355.40)
147.120 ± 88.52
(37.21 – 257.03)
0.0078*
DLP 4D-cCT (mGy×cm)
136.68 ± 78.40
(116.07 – 157.30)
141.93 ± 78.07
(120.41 – 163.44)
81.14 ± 64.25
(1.37 – 160.91)
0.0403*
DLP CTPA (mGy×cm)
155.58 ± 79.58
(134.66 – 176.51)
163.59 ± 78.43
(141.97 – 185.20)
70.74 ± 20.63
(45.12 – 96.36)
0.0026*
overall CTDI vol (mGy)
18.23 ± 8.76
(15.92 – 20.53)
18.96 ± 8.72
(16.55 – 21.36)
10.52 ± 4.88
(4.45 – 16.58)
0.0075*
CTDI vol 4D-cCT (mGy)
8.15 ± 4.86
(6.87 – 9.43)
8.43 ± 4.86
(7.09 – 9.77)
5.14 ± 4.20
(–0.08 – 10.36)
0.0717
CTDI vol CTPA (mGy)
4.31 ± 2.27
(3.72 – 4.91)
4.52 ± 2.26
(3.90 – 5.14)
2.10 ± 0.55
(1.41 – 2.79)
0.0056*
kV 4D-cCT
74.31 ± 7.97
(72.21 – 76.41)
73.96 ± 7.68
(71.85 – 76.08)
78.00 ± 10.95
(64.40 – 91.60)
0.4041
kV CTPA
105.17 ± 16.36
(100.87 – 109.47)
108.11 ± 13.74
(104.33 – 111.90)
74.00 ± 5.48
(67.20 – 80.80)
0.0002*
mAs 4D-cCT
165.07 ± 70.03
(146.66 – 183.48)
168.55 ± 68.77
(149.59 – 187.50)
128.20 ± 80.83
(27.84 – 228.56)
0.2212
mAs CTPA
109.72 ± 46.47
(97.51 – 121.94)
101.40 ± 31.91
(92.60 – 110.19)
198.00 ± 82.91
(95.05 – 300.95)
0.0015*
DSCT = dual-source CT, N = number of patients, SD = standard deviation, 4D-cCT = 4-dimensional
cardiac computed tomography, CTPA = computed tomography pulmonary angiography.
The chest and heart scan contributed similarly to the overall effective dose. There
was a statistically significant difference between the 2nd and 3rd generation DSCT systems for all dose values except for the tube voltage and tube
current on 4D-cCT ([Table 2 ]).
Image quality
Attenuation measurements on the high-pitch CTPA images ([Table 3 ]) showed the highest attenuation values in the main pulmonary artery followed by
the apical and basal sub-segmental branches.
Table 3
Attenuation values (Hounsfield units) on CTPA.Tab. 3 Dichtewerte (Hounsfield Units) in der CTPA.
location
attenuation mean ± SD (95 % confidence interval)
main pulmonary artery
442.01 ± 187.64
(393.54 – 490.49)
left basal segmental branch
388.78 ± 138.09
(353.11 – 424.46)
right apical segmental branch
381.88 ± 141.66
(345.29 – 418.48)
autochthonous back muscle
73.38 ± 12.37
(70.19 – 76.58)
SD = standard deviation, CTPA = computed tomography pulmonary angiography.
On the 4D-cCT images, the attenuation values were highest in the descending aorta
followed by the left cardiac chambers ([Table 4 ]). The RA and RV had the lowest attenuation values of all cardiac chambers. However,
the mean attenuation within both atriums was still above 400 HU, which was sufficient
for the evaluation of cardiac function.
Table 4
Attenuation values (Hounsfield units) on 4D-cCT.Tab. 4 Dichtewerte (Hounsfield Units) in der Herzfunktionsaufnahme.
location
attenuation mean ± SD (95 % confidence interval)
RA
415.50 ± 263.01
(347.56 – 483.44)
RV
432.86 ± 224.65
(374.83 – 490.89)
LA
540.77 ± 185.58
(492.83 – 588.71)
LV
543.64 ± 188.33
(494.99 – 592.29)
descending aorta
560.59 ± 208.81
(506.65 – 614.53)
liver
51.17 ± 18.37
(46.42 – 55.91)
SD = standard deviation, RA = right atrium, RV = right ventricle, LA = left atrium,
LV = left ventricle, 4D-cCT = 4-dimensional cardiac computed tomography
According to the attenuation values, the contrast-to-noise ratio and signal-to-noise
ratio on CTPA showed the highest values within the main pulmonary artery, followed
by the left basal sub-segmental branch. The right apical sub-segmental branch showed
the lowest CNR and SNR on CTPA images ([Table 5 ]).
Table 5
Contrast-to-noise and signal-to-noise ratios for CTPA and 4D-cCT. Median qualitative
image quality for CTPA and 4D-cCT.Tab. 5 Kontrast-zu-Rausch-Verhältnis und Signal-zu-Rausch Verhältnis in der CTPA und 4D-cCT.
objective image quality
mean ± SD (95 % confidence interval)
CNR RA
4.80 ± 3.17 (3.98 – 5.62)
CNR RV
6.57 ± 3.96 (5.55 – 7.59)
CNR LA
7.92 ± 3.30 (7.07 – 8.77)
CNR LV
8.66 ± 3.70 (7.71 – 9.61)
CNR descending aorta
10.26 ± 5.57 (8.82 – 11.70)
CNR main pulmonary artery
12.43 ± 4.57 (11.25 – 13.61)
CNR right apical segmental branch
6.11 ± 7.79 (4.09 – 8.12)
CNR left basal segmental branch
7.90 ± 4.42 (6.76 – 9.05)
SNR RA
5.62 ± 3.35 (4.75 – 6.48)
SNR RV
7.54 ± 4.10 (6.48 – 8.60)
SNR LA
8.79 ± 3.52 (7.89 – 9.70)
SNR LV
9.62 ± 4.04 (8.58 – 10.67)
SNR descending aorta
10.86 ± 5.17 (9.53 – 12.20)
SNR main pulmonary artery
15.14 ± 4.90 (13.88 – 16.41)
SNR right apical segmental branch
7.53 ± 8.91 (5.23 – 9.83)
SNR left basal segmental branch
9.87 ± 5.25 (8.52 – 11.23)
median qualitative image quality
mean (minimum-maximum)
image quality CTPA
5 (3 – 5)
image noise CTPA
4 (3 – 5)
artifacts CTPA
1 (1 – 3)
image quality 4D-cCT
4 (2 – 5)
image noise 4D-cCT
3 (2 – 5)
artifacts 4D-cCT
1 (1 – 3)
CNR = contrast-to-noise ratio, SNR = signal-to-noise ratio, SD = standard deviation,
RA = right atrium, RV = right ventricle, LA = left atrium, LV = left ventricle, 4D-cCT = 4-dimensional
cardiac computed tomography, CTPA = computed tomography pulmonary angiography.
On 4D-cCT images, the highest SNR and CNR could be measured in the descending aorta
followed by the LV and LA. The lowest SNR and CNR appeared in the RV and RA ([Table 5 ]).
Assessment of the qualitative image quality ([Table 5 ]) revealed slightly better visualization for CTPA than for 4D-cCT (5 (3 – 5) vs.
4 (2 – 5)) with lower image noise (4 (3 – 5) vs. 3 (2 – 5)) and equal motion artifacts
(both: 1 (1 – 3)). However, both parts of the protocol showed sufficient image quality
for the assessment of pulmonary embolism and the evaluation of right ventricular function.
Artifacts were mostly caused by implanted cardioverter defibrillators and pacemakers.
RVEF, LVEF, RVEF/LVEF ratio
The mean LVEF was 60.73 % ± 14.65 % (56.95 % – 64.52 %), and the mean RVEF was 44.90 %
± 9.54 % (42.44 % – 47.36 %). The mean RVEF/LVEF was 0.79 ± 0.29 (0.71 – 0.86). There
was no significant difference between the PE and non-PE group for either of the parameters
([Table 6 ]).
Table 6
Mean values of LVEF, RVEF and RVEF/LVEF for all patients, patients diagnosed with
PE and patients without PE. P-values for the statistical difference between PE and
non-PE patients.Tab. 6 Mittelwerte für LVEF, RVEF und RVEF/LVEF für alle Patienten, Patienten mit LE Diagnose
und Patienten, bei denen eine LE ausgeschlossen wurde. P-Werte für den statistischen
Unterschied zwischen LE- und Nicht-LE-Patienten.
parameter
mean ± SD
(95 % confidence interval)
mean ± SD PE
(95 % confidence interval)
mean ± SD no PE
(95 % confidence interval)
p-value
LVEF (%)
60.73 ± 14.65
(56.95 – 64.52)
62.44 ± 18.88
(47.94 – 76.95)
60.43 ± 13.99
(56.50 – 64.37)
0.4311
RVEF (%)
44.90 ± 9.54
(42.44 – 47.36)
42.22 ± 11.24
(33.59 – 50.87)
45.37 ± 9.25
(42.77 – 47.97)
0.3653
RVEF/LVEF
0.79 ± 0.29
(0.71 – 0.86)
0.74 ± 0.29
(0.52 – 0.96)
0.80 ± 0.29
(0.71 – 0.88)
0.3623
LVEF = left ventricular ejection fraction, RVEF = right ventricular ejection fraction,
RVEF/LVEF = ratio of right ventricular ejection fraction and left ventricular ejection
fraction, SD = standard deviation, PE = pulmonary embolism.
Discussion
The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of a novel high-pitch CTPA protocol
followed by low-dose retrospectively ECG-gated cardiac CT for the assessment of RVD
using a single contrast bolus. Our results demonstrate that the protocol is feasible
without the use of an additional contrast bolus and allows a detailed analysis of
cardiac function. In contrast to a standard retrospectively ECG-gated coronary CT
protocol with a high radiation dose, the radiation dose of our protocol was significantly
lower since we manually reduced the tube current of the ECG-dependent tube current
modulation throughout the whole cardiac cycle.
Echocardiographic findings of RVD have long been reported to be associated with higher
mortality rates [11 ]. Patients with RV hypokinesis on echocardiography showed a doubling of the mortality
rate at 14 days compared to patients without RVD [11 ]. CT measurements of RVD include RV/LV ratios obtained on transverse sections and
reconstructed 4-chamber view. Previous studies have reported a higher accuracy for
the RV/LV ratio assessed on 4-chamber view images than on transverse sections compared
with echocardiography [7 ]. RV enlargement on CT has been correlated with a 5-fold increase in the risk of
death within 30 days [7 ]. There are previous studies that also assessed the additional value of ECG-synchronized
measurements in patients with acute PE [8 ]
[9 ]. Despite showing a potential benefit compared to standard CTPA measurements, the
additional radiation dose and contrast agent did prevent a recommendation of ECG-synchronized
protocols for routine clinical use. Our study showed a mean effective radiation dose
of 4.22 mSv (1.91 mSv for cardiac scanning alone). In contrast, Dogan et al. reported
a notably higher effective radiation dose of 3.0 – 4.2 mSv for cardiac scanning alone
[9 ].
Due to the fast image acquisition of high-pitch CTPA in our study, it was possible
to use only one 80-ml contrast material bolus for both parts of the protocol. During
the functional cardiac examination, contrast medium was mostly concentrated in the
left atrium (LA), LV and descending aorta ([Table 4 ]). However, there was still sufficient contrast material left within the right cardiac
chambers to allow functional RV analysis. The CNR and SNR values for RV and LV were
comparable to those published by Takx et al. in a study evaluating a prospectively
ECG-triggered coronary CT angiography protocol with an 80 % dose reduction [12 ]. It has to be pointed out that two different scanner generations with notable differences
in radiation dose (and attenuation values) were used in our study. However, images
of both scanners were of sufficient image quality to assess right ventricular function.
The suggested protocol is also transferable to other high-end CT systems, even non-DSCT
systems that allow rapid thoracic CT of less than 2 s (e. g. CT systems with larger
detector coverage instead of high-pitch imaging).
Using the remaining contrast medium for additional cardiac scanning allowed us to
evaluate not only RV but also LV function.
In our study, we did not include echocardiography or cardiac MRI as a reference standard.
It could be proven in previous studies that ECG-synchronized CT scanning is comparable
to magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the evaluation of RV and LV function [13 ]. This also allowed the examination of differential diagnoses for dyspnea, such as
cardiac decompensation, etc., in addition to PE confirmation/exclusion.
For the evaluation of right ventricular function, only the ejection fraction was assessed,
without paying additional attention to regional wall motion abnormalities, since the
aim of this study was simply to prove the feasibility of the proposed CT protocol.
Over all patients, RVEF showed no statistically significant difference between PE
and non-PE patients. This might be due to the fact that the non-PE group included
12 patients (23.5 %) with preexisting right heart insufficiency.
RV function and the standard value for RVEF depend on age, gender and body surface
area [14 ] and therefore can show significant variability. This also applies to LV function
[15 ]. To rule out these influences, we calculated the ratio of RVEF and LVEF.
Our study has three main limitations, which have to be considered. First, we had a
relatively small sample size – which was, however, adequate to assess the feasibility
of our CT protocol. Second, we did not correlate CT findings of RV function with transthoracic
echocardiography as a gold standard for the assessment of RV function in patients
with acute PE. Third, there was no correlation of our results with clinical outcome,
since this was merely a feasibility study, as already mentioned above. Thus, further
studies have to evaluate the additional value of ECG-synchronized measurements with
regard to their potential additional benefit in risk stratification and correlation
with clinical outcome. It might be of additional value to compare end-systolic and
end-diastolic parameters regarding their diagnostic accuracy for determining RVD in
patients with acute PE.
Clinical relevance of the study
The novel CT protocol evaluated in this study allows the diagnosis of PE and detailed
analysis of RV function at the same time. This might help with respect to rapid risk
stratification in patients with acute PE, especially when echocardiography is not
directly available. It shows good image quality and an acceptable radiation dose when
compared to standard CTPA protocols.
