Background We investigated the impact of varying contrast medium (CM) densities and x-ray tube potentials on contrast enhancement (CE), image quality and radiation dose in thoracic computed tomography (CT) using two different scanning techniques. Methods Seven plastic tubes containing seven different CM densities ranging from of 0 to 600 HU were positioned inside a commercial chest phantom with padding, representing three different patient sizes. Helical scans of the phantom in single-source mode were obtained with varying tube potentials from 70 to 140 kVp. A constant volume CT dose index (CTDIvol) depending on phantom size and automatic dose modulation was tested. CE (HU) and image quality (contrast-to-noise ratio, CNR) were measured for all combinations of CM density and tube potential. A reference threshold of CE and kVp was defined as ≥ 200 HU and 120 kVp. Results For the medium-sized phantom, with a specific CE of 100–600 HU, the diagnostic CE (200 HU) at 70 kVp was ~ 90% higher than at 120 kVp, for both scan techniques (p < 0.001). Changes in CM density/specific HU together with lower kVp resulted in significantly higher CE and CNR (p < 0.001). When changing only the kVp, no statistically significant differences were observed in CE or CNR (p ≥ 0.094), using both dose modulation and constant CTDIvol. Conclusions For thoracic CT, diagnostic CE (≥ 200 HU) and maintained CNR were achieved by using lower CM density in combination with lower tube potential (< 120 kVp), independently of phantom size.

No abstract

Background Administration of contrast medium (CM) is an important image quality factor in computed tomography (CT) of the chest. There is no clear evidence or guidelines on CM strategies for chest CT, thus a consensus approach is needed. Purpose To survey the potential impact on differences in chest CT protocols, with emphasis on strategies for the administration of CM. Material and Methods A total of 170 respondents were included in this survey, which used two different approaches: (i) an online survey was sent to the members of the European Society of Thoracic Imaging (ESTI); and (ii) an email requesting a copy of their CT protocol was sent to all hospitals in Norway, and university hospitals in Sweden and Denmark. The survey focused on factors affecting CM protocols and enhancement in chest CT. Results The overall response rate was 24% (n = 170): 76% of the respondents used a CM concentration of ≥350 mgI/mL; 52% of the respondents used a fixed CM volume strategy. Fixed strategies for injection rate and delay were also the most common approach, practiced by 73% and 57% of the respondents, respectively. The fixed delay was in the range of 20–90 s. Of the respondents, 56% used flexible tube potential strategies (kV). Conclusion The chest CT protocols and CM administration strategies employed by the respondents vary widely, affecting the image quality. The results of this study underline the need for further research and consensus guidelines related to chest CT.

No abstract