Jan-Lucca Hennes, Henner Huflage, Jan-Peter Grunz, Viktor Hartung, Anne Marie Augustin, Theresa Sophie Patzer, Pauline Pannenbecker, Bernhard Petritsch, Thorsten Alexander Bley, Philipp Gruschwitz

• This retrospective study aims to provide an intra-individual comparison of aortic CT angiographies (CTAs) using first-generation photon-counting-detector CT (PCD-CT) and third-generation energy-integrating-detector CT (EID-CT). High-pitch CTAs were performed with both scanners and equal contrast-agent protocols. EID-CT employed automatic tube voltage selection (90/100 kVp) with reference tube current of 434/350 mAs, whereas multi-energy PCD-CT scans were generated with fixed tube voltage (120 kVp), image quality level of 64, and reconstructedThis retrospective study aims to provide an intra-individual comparison of aortic CT angiographies (CTAs) using first-generation photon-counting-detector CT (PCD-CT) and third-generation energy-integrating-detector CT (EID-CT). High-pitch CTAs were performed with both scanners and equal contrast-agent protocols. EID-CT employed automatic tube voltage selection (90/100 kVp) with reference tube current of 434/350 mAs, whereas multi-energy PCD-CT scans were generated with fixed tube voltage (120 kVp), image quality level of 64, and reconstructed as 55 keV monoenergetic images. For image quality assessment, contrast-to-noise ratios (CNRs) were calculated, and subjective evaluation (overall quality, luminal contrast, vessel sharpness, blooming, and beam hardening) was performed independently by three radiologists. Fifty-seven patients (12 women, 45 men) were included with a median interval between examinations of 12.7 months (interquartile range 11.1 months). Using manufacturer-recommended scan protocols resulted in a substantially lower radiation dose in PCD-CT (size-specific dose estimate: 4.88 ± 0.48 versus 6.28 ± 0.50 mGy, p < 0.001), while CNR was approximately 50% higher (41.11 ± 8.68 versus 27.05 ± 6.73, p < 0.001). Overall image quality and luminal contrast were deemed superior in PCD-CT (p < 0.001). Notably, EID-CT allowed for comparable vessel sharpness (p = 0.439) and less pronounced blooming and beam hardening (p < 0.001). Inter-rater agreement was good to excellent (0.58–0.87). Concluding, aortic PCD-CTAs facilitate increased image quality with significantly lower radiation dose compared to EID-CTAs…