Publication: Multiplatform, Non-Breath-Hold Fast Scanning Protocols: Should We Stop Giving Breath-Hold Instructions for Routine Chest CT?
Issued Date
2020-01-01
Resource Type
ISSN
14882361
08465371
08465371
Other identifier(s)
2-s2.0-85084584694
Rights
Mahidol University
Rights Holder(s)
SCOPUS
Bibliographic Citation
Canadian Association of Radiologists Journal. (2020)
Suggested Citation
Ruhani Doda Khera, Chayanin Nitiwarangkul, Ramandeep Singh, Fatemeh Homayounieh, Subba R. Digumarthy, Mannudeep K. Kalra Multiplatform, Non-Breath-Hold Fast Scanning Protocols: Should We Stop Giving Breath-Hold Instructions for Routine Chest CT?. Canadian Association of Radiologists Journal. (2020). doi:10.1177/0846537120920530 Retrieved from: https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/123456789/56314
Research Projects
Organizational Units
Authors
Journal Issue
Thesis
Title
Multiplatform, Non-Breath-Hold Fast Scanning Protocols: Should We Stop Giving Breath-Hold Instructions for Routine Chest CT?
Abstract
© The Author(s) 2020. Objective: We assessed if non-breath-hold (NBH) fast scanning protocol can provide respiratory motion-free images for interpretation of chest computed tomography (CT). Materials and Methods: In our 2-phase project, we first collected baseline data on frequency of respiratory motion artifacts on breath-hold chest CT in 826 adult patients. The second phase included 62 patients (mean age 66 ± 15 years; 21 females, 41 males) who underwent an NBH chest CT on either single-source (n = 32) or dual-source (n = 30) multidetector-row CT scanners. Clinical indications for chest CT, reason for using NBH CT, scanner type, scan duration, and radiation dose (CT dose index volume, dose length product) were recorded. Two thoracic radiologists (R1 and R2) independently graded respiratory motion artifacts (1 = no respiratory motion artifacts with unrestricted evaluation; 2 = minor motion artifacts limited to one lung lobe or less with good diagnostic quality; 3 = moderate motion artifacts limited to 2 to 3 lung lobes but adequate for clinical diagnosis; 4 = poor evaluability or unevaluable from severe motion artifacts; and 5 = limited quality due to other causes like high noise, beam hardening, or metallic artifacts), and recorded pulmonary and mediastinal findings. Descriptive analyses, Cohen κ test for interobserver agreement, and Student t test were performed for statistical analysis. Results: No NBH chest CT were deemed uninterpretable by either radiologist; most NBH CT (R1-59 of 62, 95%; R2-62 of 62, 100%) had no or minimal motion artifacts. Only 3 of 62 (R1) NBH chest CT had motion artifacts limiting diagnostic evaluation for lungs but not in the mediastinum. Conclusion: Non-breath-hold fast protocol enables acquisition of diagnostic quality chest CT free of respiratory motion artifacts in patients who cannot hold their breath.