ArticleEuropean radiology2025
Patient-tailored versus fixed post-trigger delay for optimized scan timing: a comparison of image quality and diagnostic confidence in run-off CT angiography.
Article in European radiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed to validate bolus tracking using a patient-tailored post-trigger delay (PTD) in run-off computed tomography angiography (CTA) and to compare the resulting image quality and diagnostic confidence with those obtained using a fixed PTD. MATERIALS AND
methodsParticipants were prospectively assigned to either fixed (10 s) or patient-tailored cohorts. We measured attenuation, signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) for each vascular segment. Two radiologists evaluated qualitative image quality and diagnostic confidence. Differences in quantitative variables between cohorts were assessed using Student's t-test or Mann-Whitney U test, while categorical variables were assessed using chi-square test. Generalized least squares linear regression was used to evaluate the effects of different cohorts, anatomical locations, and their interactions on attenuation.
resultsThe patient-tailored cohort showed significantly higher attenuation from the popliteal artery to the foot artery (all p < 0.001), with a patient-tailored PTD ranging from 8.10 to 14.90 s. Generalized least squares linear regression revealed more uniform attenuation in patient-tailored cohort and decreasing attenuation in fixed cohort (decrease of 89.06 HU in foot artery, p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in image noise between cohorts (p = 0.060), while SNR and CNR were higher in the patient-tailored cohort at most measurement locations (all p < 0.05). Both radiologists rated the patient-tailored cohort as having better qualitative image quality and more segment with unrestricted diagnostic confidence.
conclusionsBolus tracking with patient-tailored PTD provides reliable scan timing, resulting in optimized vessel opacification, improved image quality, and enhanced diagnostic confidence in run-off CTA. KEY POINTS: Question Is this novel bolus tracking algorithm for run-off CT angiography feasible for improving image quality by automatically predicting patient-tailored post-trigger delay (PTD) through real-time monitoring. Findings Patient-tailored PTD improved image quality and distal artery opacification through reliable scan timing, thereby enhancing diagnostic confidence. Clinical relevance Patient-tailored PTD improved image quality, not only demonstrating the potential for reducing contrast media volume but also eliminating the need for compensatory scans from the feet to the knee, thus minimizing additional radiation exposure.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40481875What 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.