Publication:
Multiplatform, Non-Breath-Hold Fast Scanning Protocols: Should We Stop Giving Breath-Hold Instructions for Routine Chest CT?

dc.contributor.authorRuhani Doda Kheraen_US
dc.contributor.authorChayanin Nitiwarangkulen_US
dc.contributor.authorRamandeep Singhen_US
dc.contributor.authorFatemeh Homayouniehen_US
dc.contributor.authorSubba R. Digumarthyen_US
dc.contributor.authorMannudeep K. Kalraen_US
dc.contributor.otherMassachusetts General Hospitalen_US
dc.contributor.otherFaculty of Medicine, Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol Universityen_US
dc.date.accessioned2020-06-02T05:24:08Z
dc.date.available2020-06-02T05:24:08Z
dc.date.issued2020-01-01en_US
dc.description.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.en_US
dc.identifier.citationCanadian Association of Radiologists Journal. (2020)en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1177/0846537120920530en_US
dc.identifier.issn14882361en_US
dc.identifier.issn08465371en_US
dc.identifier.other2-s2.0-85084584694en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/123456789/56314
dc.rightsMahidol Universityen_US
dc.rights.holderSCOPUSen_US
dc.source.urihttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85084584694&origin=inwarden_US
dc.subjectMedicineen_US
dc.titleMultiplatform, Non-Breath-Hold Fast Scanning Protocols: Should We Stop Giving Breath-Hold Instructions for Routine Chest CT?en_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dspace.entity.typePublication
mu.datasource.scopushttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85084584694&origin=inwarden_US

Files

Collections