Image Quality and Radiation Exposure in Abdominal Angiography: A Head-to-Head Comparison of Conventional Detector-Dose-Driven Versus Contrast-to-Noise Ratio-Driven Exposure Control at Various Source-to-Image Receptor Distances and Collimations in a Pilot Phantom and Animal Study.

OBJECTIVES: This phantom and animal pilot study aimed to compare image quality and radiation exposure between detector-dose-driven exposure control (DEC) and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR)-driven exposure control (CEC) as functions of source-to-image receptor distance (SID) and collimation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: First, an iron foil simulated a guide wire in a stack of polymethyl methacrylate and aluminum plates representing patient thicknesses of 15, 25, and 35 cm. Fluoroscopic images were acquired using 5 SIDs ranging from 100 to 130 cm and 2 collimations (full field of view, collimated field of view: 6 × 6 cm). The iron foil CNRs were calculated, and radiation doses in terms of air kerma rate were obtained and assessed using a multivariate regression. Second, 5 angiographic scenarios were created in 2 anesthetized pigs. Fluoroscopic images were acquired at 2 SIDs (110 and 130 cm) and both collimations. Two blinded experienced readers compared image quality to the reference image using full field of view at an SID of 110 cm. Air kerma rate was obtained and compared using t tests.

RESULTS: Using DEC, both CNR and air kerma rate increased significantly at longer SID and collimation below the air kerma rate limit. When using CEC, CNR was significantly less dependent of SID, collimation, and patient thickness. Air kerma rate decreased at longer SID and tighter collimation. After reaching the air kerma rate limit, CEC behaved similarly to DEC. In the animal study using DEC, image quality and air kerma rate increased with longer SID and collimation (P < 0.005). Using CEC, image quality was not significantly different than using longer SID or tighter collimation. Air kerma rate was not significantly different at longer SID but lower using collimation (P = 0.012).

CONCLUSIONS: CEC maintains the image quality with varying SID and collimation stricter than DEC, does not increase the air kerma rate at longer SID and reduces it with tighter collimation. After reaching the air kerma rate limit, CEC and DEC perform similarly.