Bernhard Petritsch, Pauline Pannbecker, Andreas M. Weng, Jan-Peter Grunz, Simon Veldhoen, Thorsten A. Bley, Aleksander Kosmala

• Background: Computed tomography (CT) pulmonary angiography is the diagnostic reference standard in suspected pulmonary embolism (PE). Favorable results for dual-energy CT (DECT) images have been reported for this condition. Nowadays, dual-energy data acquisition is feasible with different technical options, including a single-source split-filter approach. Therefore, the aim of this retrospective study was to investigate image quality and radiation dose of thoracic split-filter DECT in comparison to conventional single-energy CT in patients withBackground: Computed tomography (CT) pulmonary angiography is the diagnostic reference standard in suspected pulmonary embolism (PE). Favorable results for dual-energy CT (DECT) images have been reported for this condition. Nowadays, dual-energy data acquisition is feasible with different technical options, including a single-source split-filter approach. Therefore, the aim of this retrospective study was to investigate image quality and radiation dose of thoracic split-filter DECT in comparison to conventional single-energy CT in patients with suspected PE. Methods: A total of 110 CT pulmonary angiographies were accomplished either as standard single-energy CT with automatic tube voltage selection (ATVS) (n=58), or as split-filter DECT (n=52). Objective [pulmonary artery CT attenuation, signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR)] and subjective image quality [four-point Likert scale; three readers (R)] were compared among the two study groups. Size-specific dose estimates (SSDE), dose-length-product (DLP) and volume CT dose index (CTDIvol) were assessed for radiation dose analysis. Results: Split-filter DECT images yielded 67.7% higher SNR (27.0 vs. 16.1; P<0.001) and 61.9% higher CNR (22.5 vs. 13.9; P<0.001) over conventional single-energy images, whereas CT attenuation was significantly lower (344.5 vs. 428.2 HU; P=0.013). Subjective image quality was rated good or excellent in 93.0%/98.3%/77.6% (R1/R2/R3) of the single-energy CT scans, and 84.6%/82.7%/80.8% (R1/R2/R3) of the split-filter DECT scans. SSDE, DLP and CTDIvol were significantly lower for conventional single-energy CT compared to split-filter DECT (all P<0.05), which was associated with 26.7% higher SSDE. Conclusions: In the diagnostic workup of acute PE, the split-filter allows for dual-energy data acquisition from single-source single-layer CT scanners. The existing opportunity to assess pulmonary “perfusion” based on analysis of iodine distribution maps is associated with higher radiation dose in terms of increased SSDE than conventional single-energy CT with ATVS. Moreover, a proportion of up to 3.8% non-diagnostic examinations in the current reference standard test for PE is not negligible.…