Trial reportEuropean radiology2014
Assessment of vascular contrast and wall motion of the aortic root and ascending aorta on MDCT angiography: dual-source high-pitch vs non-gated single-source acquisition schemes.
Trial report in European radiology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Motion correction for routine X-ray lung CT imaging.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Improved assessment of mediastinal and pulmonary pathologies in combined staging CT examinations using a fast-speed acquisition dual-source CT protocol.European radiology · 2017Article
- Comparison of Image Quality and Radiation Dose between High-Pitch Mode and Low-Pitch Mode Spiral Chest CT in Small Uncooperative Children: The Effect of Respiratory Rate.European radiology · 2016Article
- High-pitch dual-source CT angiography without ECG-gating for imaging the whole aorta: intraindividual comparison with standard pitch single-source technique without ECG gating.Diagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis retrospective study assessed whether dual-source high-pitch computed tomographic angiography (CTA) offered advantages over single-source standard-pitch techniques in the evaluation of the ascending aorta.
methodsTwenty patients who received both thoracic dual-source high-pitch and single-source standard-pitch CTAs within 1 year were assessed. Dual-source CTAs were performed; standard-pitch imaging used dose-modulated 120 kVp/150 mAs and 0.8 pitch compared with high-pitch protocols employing dose-modulated 120 kVp/250 mAs and 2.4 target pitch. Radiation dose was documented. Contrast-to-noise ratios (CNRs) at sinuses of the Valsalva (CNRValsalva) and ascending aorta (CNRAorta) were calculated. Dose/CNR for each technique was compared with paired t-tests. Motion at aortic valve, aortic root and ascending aorta were assessed with four-point scales and Mann-Whitney U tests; longitudinal extension of motion was compared with paired t-tests.
resultsSignificantly lower motion scores for high-pitch, compared with standard-pitch acquisitions for aortic annulus, 0 vs. 2, aortic root, 0 vs. 3, and ascending aorta, 0 vs. 2, were achieved. Significantly reduced longitudinal extension of motion at aortic root, 4.9 mm vs 15.7 mm, and ascending aorta, 4.9 mm vs 21.6 mm, was observed. Contrast was not impacted: CNRValsalva, 45.6 vs 46.3, and CNRAorta, 45.3 vs 47.1. CTDIvol was significantly decreased for high-pitch acquisitions, 13.9 mGy vs 15.8 mGy.
conclusionsDual-source high-pitch CTAs significantly decreased motion artefact without negatively impacting vascular contrast and radiation dose. KEY POINTS: • Dual-source high-pitch CTA significantly decreased motion artefact of the ascending aorta. • Dual-source high-pitch CTA did not negatively impact on vascular contrast. • Dual-source high-pitch CTA significantly decreased radiation dose compared with single-source standard-pitch acquisitions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24573567What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.