Aorta and iliac arteries: single versus multiple detector-row helical CT angiography.

PURPOSE

To compare single- versus four-channel helical computed tomographic (CT) aortography.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Forty-eight patients with aortic aneurysm or dissection underwent four- and one-channel CT angiography. Scan pairs covered the thoracic inlet to the diaphragm (n = 10) and supraceliac abdominal aorta (n = 19) or thoracic inlet (n = 19) to the femoral arterial bifurcations. For four-channel CT, nominal section thickness and pitch were 2.5 mm and 6.0, respectively, and for one-channel CT, 3.0 mm and 2.0 to the infrarenal aorta and 5.0 mm and 2.0 to the femoral arteries. Effective section thickness, scanning duration, scanning coverage, dose of iodinated contrast material, and mean aortoiliac attenuation were compared. Data were summarized as speed (coverage/duration), scanning efficiency (speed/section thickness), and contrast efficiency (mean aortic attenuation/dose of contrast material).

RESULTS

At four- versus one-channel CT, CT angiography was 2.6 times faster, scanning efficiency was 4.1 times greater, contrast efficiency was 2.5 times greater, dose of contrast material was reduced (mean, 57%; 97 vs 232 mL) without a significant change in aortic enhancement, and sections were thinner (mean, 40%; 3.2 vs 5.3 mm) despite a 59% shorter scanning duration (22 vs 56 seconds).

CONCLUSION

Substantially reduced doses of contrast medium, shorter scanning durations, and narrower effective sections result with four- versus one-channel CT aortography. No advantages of one-channel CT aortography were demonstrated.