Dual energy CT angiography for lower extremity trauma: comparison with conventional CT

Purpose To determine if rapid switching dual-energy CT (rsDECT) provides improvements in vascular attenuation, subjective diagnostic quality, and detection of vascular injuries compared to conventional CT in trauma patients undergoing lower extremity CT angiography. Materials and methods The IRB approved this HIPAA-compliant retrospective study. Informed consent was waived. Thirty-nine patients with acute lower extremity trauma including gunshot wounds (19 patients), falls (6 patients), motor vehicle accidents (5 patients), stab wounds (4 patients), pedestrian struck (2 patients), and unspecified trauma (3 patients) who underwent IV contrast-enhanced rsDECT angiography of the lower extremities on a rapid-kilovoltage-switching dual-energy CT scanner (Revolution CT, GE Healthcare) from 6/4/2019 to 1/14/2021 were studied. 7 patients were initially positive for vascular injury on conventional CT, while 32 patients were negative. Blended CT reconstructions simulating conventional 120 kVp single-energy CT, and rsDECT reconstructions (50 keV monoenergetic and iodine density maps) were reviewed. Region of interest contrast density measurements were recorded on conventional and 50 keV reconstructions at multiple levels from the distal aorta to the ankles and compared using Wilcoxon signed‐rank tests. Vascular contrast density of 150 HU was used as a minimum cutoff for diagnostically adequate opacification. Images were interpreted by consensus for subjective image quality and presence of injury on both conventional and DECT reconstructions by two fellowship-trained abdominal radiologists blinded to clinical data, and compared using the paired McNemar test. Results Density measurement differences between conventional and rsDECT at every level of the bilateral lower extremities were statistically significant, with the average difference ranging from 304 Hounsfield units (HU) in the distal aorta to 121 HU at the ankles ( p < 0.0001). Using a cutoff of 150 HU, 9.5% (93/976) and 3.1% of vascular segments (30/976) were considered non-diagnostic in the conventional and rsDECT groups, respectively, a reduction of 67.7% ( p < 0.0001). Subjective image quality between conventional and rsDECT was not statistically significant, but there were 7 vascular segments out of a total of 976 segments across 3 different patients out of a total of 39 patients in which diagnostic quality was upgraded from non-diagnostic on conventional CT to diagnostic on rsDECT, all of which showed suboptimal bolus quality on conventional CT (unmeasurable in 4/7 and ranging from 56–146 HU in the remaining 3). Similarly, rate of injury detection was identical between conventional CT (15/39 patients) and DECT (15/39 patients). Conclusions Vascular contrast density is statistically significantly higher with rsDECT compared to conventional CT, and subjective image quality was upgraded from non-diagnostic on conventional CT to diagnostic on rsDECT in 7 vascular segments across 3 patients. Clinical relevance rsDECT provides greater vascular contrast density than conventional CT, with potential to salvage suboptimal examinations caused by poor contrast opacification.