Image Quality and Radiation Dose of CTPA With Iodine Maps: A Prospective Randomized Study of High-Pitch Mode Photon-Counting Detector CT Versus Energy-Integrating Detector CT.

Dual-energy CT pulmonary angiography (CTPA) with energy-integrating detector (EID) technology is limited by the inability to use high-pitch technique. The purpose of this study was to compare the image quality of anatomic images and iodine maps between high-pitch photon-counting detector (PCD) CTPA and dual-energy EID CTPA. This prospective study included 117 patients (70 men and 47 women; median age, 65 years) who underwent CTPA to evaluate for pulmonary embolism between March 2022 and November 2022. Fifty-eight patients were randomized to undergo PCD CTPA (pitch, 2.0), and 59 were randomized to undergo EID CTPA (pitch, 0.55). For each examination, 120-kV polychromatic images, 60-keV virtual monogenetic images (VMIs), and iodine maps were reconstructed. One radiologist measured CNR and SNR. Three radiologists independently assessed subjective image quality (on a scale of 1-4, with a score of 1 denoting highest quality). Radiation dose was recorded. SNR and CNR were higher for PCD CTPA than for EID CTPA for polychromatic images and VMIs, for all assessed vessels other than the left upper lobe artery. For example, for PCD CTPA versus EID CTPA, the right lower lobe artery on polychromatic images had an SNR of 34.5 versus 28.0 ( = .003) and a CNR of 29.2 versus 24.4 ( = .001), and on VMIs it had an SNR of 43.2 versus 32.7 ( = .005) and a CNR of 37.4 versus 29.3 ( = .002). For both scanners for readers 1 and 2, the median image quality score for polychromatic images and VMIs was 1, although distributions indicated significantly better scores for PCD CTPA than for EID CTPA for polychromatic images for reader 1 ( = .02) and reader 2 ( = .005) and for VMIs for reader 1 ( = .001) and reader 2 ( = .006). The image quality of anatomic image sets was not different between PCD CTPA and EID CTPA for reader 3 ( > .05). The image quality of iodine maps was not different between PCD CTPA and EID CTPA for any reader ( > .05). For PCD CTPA versus EID CTPA, the CTDI was 3.9 versus 4.5 mGy ( = .03), and the DLP was 123.5 mGy × cm versus 157.0 mGy × cm ( < .001). High-pitch PCD CTPA provided anatomic images with better subjective and objective image quality versus dual-energy EID CTPA, with lower radiation dose. Iodine maps showed no significant difference in image quality between scanners. CTPA may benefit from the PCD CT technique.