A prospective evaluation of the contrast, radiation dose and image quality of contrast-enhanced CT scans of paediatric abdomens using a low-concentration iodinated contrast agent and low tube voltage combined with 70% ASIR algorithm

Summary Purpose To quantitatively and subjectively assess the image quality of and radiation dose for an abdominal enhanced computed tomography (CT) scan with a low tube voltage and a low concentration of iodinated contrast agent in children. Methods Forty‐eight patients were randomised to one of the two following protocols: Group A (n=24, mean age 46.96±44.65 months, mean weight 15.71±9.11 kg, BMI 16.48±2.40 kg/m2) and Group B (n=24, mean age 41.33±44.59 months, mean weight 18.15±17.67 kg, BMI 17.50±3.73 kg/m2). Group A: 80 kVp tube voltage, 270 mg iodine (I)/mL contrast agent (Visipaque, GE Healthcare) and images were reconstructed using 70% adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction (ASIR). Group B: 100 kVp tube voltage, 370 mg I/mL contrast agent (Iopamiro, Bracco) and images were reconstructed using 50% ASIR. The volume of the contrast agent was 1.30 mL/kg in both Groups A and B. The degree of enhancement and noise in the abdominal aorta (AO) in the arterial phase (AP) and the portal vein (PV) in the portal venous phase (PVP) was measured; while the signal‐to‐noise ratio (SNR) and contrast‐to‐noise ratio (CNR) for the AO and PV were calculated. A 5‐point scale was used to subjectively evaluate the image quality and image noise by two radiologists with more than 10 years of experience. Dose‐length product (DLP) (mGy‐cm) and CTDIvol (mGy) were calculated. Objective measurements and subjective quality scores for the two groups were compared using paired t‐tests and Mann‐Whitney U tests, respectively. Results There was no significant difference in age, weight or body mass index (BMI) between the two groups (all P>.5). The iodine load in Group A (5517.3±3197.2 mg I) was 37% lower than that in Group B (8772.1±8474.6 mg I), although there was no significant difference between them (P=.111). The DLP and the CT dose index (CTDIvol) for Group A were also lower than for Group B, but were not statistically significantly different (DLP, 104 mGy‐cm±45.81 vs 224.5 mGy‐cm±45.83; CTDIvol, 1.44 mGy±0.50 vs 2.08 mGy±1.87, all P>.05). The mean arterial and portal venous enhancement (255.33 HU±83.42, 146.41 HU±23.45, respectively), noise (AP 14.96 HU±2.09, PVP 16.30 HU±3.21), CNRs (AO 14.54±7.12, PV 5.07±1.73) and SNRs (AO 20.76±6.76, PV 12.43±3.24) for Group A were similar to Group B (enhancement: 226.55 HU±77.71, 138.69 HU±33.22; noise: 14.92 HU±3.12, 15.36 HU±3.48; CNRs: 12.96±7.14, 5.16±2.28; SNRs: 19.13±7.30, 12.69±4.22; all P>.05). The mean scores of the quality