Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of image quality between 70 kVp and 80 kVp: application to paediatric cardiac CT

  • Computed Tomography
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate noise level and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) with various kVp-mAs pairs producing the same computed tomography dose index (CTDI) value. The 80 kVp and new 70-kVp settings were compared.

Materials and methods

The noise was measured in 10 ovoid water phantoms with different diameters from 10 cm to 28 cm. Contrast was obtained from CTs of iodine-filled tubes. Spiral acquisition protocols at 70 kVp and 80 kVp, with the same CTDI, were applied. In the clinical study, two matched groups, each of 21 paediatric patients, underwent 70-kVp or 80-kVp ECG-gated iodinated-enhanced sequential CT.

Results

Noise was significantly higher with 70 kVp than 80-kVp settings for all phantom sizes. Estimated CNR with phantoms was higher at 70 kVp than 80 kVp, and the difference decreased from 17 % to 3 % as phantom size increased. The mean CNR in paediatric patients was 15.2 at 70 kVp and 14.3 at 80 kVp (ns). The CNR difference was significantly larger in the small-child subgroup.

Conclusion

Noise level is slightly higher at the 70-kVp than the 80-kVp setting, but the CNR is higher, particularly for small children. Therefore, 70 kVp may be appropriate for contrast-enhanced CT examinations and 80 kVp for non-enhanced CT in small children.

Key Points

• 70-kVp settings provide a slightly higher noise level compared to 80-kVp settings.

• The CNR is higher with 70-kVp than with 80-kVp settings.

• Without contrast, 80-kVp settings may be preferable over 70-kVp settings.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

ALARA:

As Low as Reasonably Achievable

CNR:

Contrast-to-Noise Ratio

CT:

Computed Tomography

CTDI:

Computed Tomography Dose Index

HU:

Hounsfield Unit

kVp:

Peak Kilovoltage

ROI:

Region of Interest

References

  1. Brenner DJ, Hall EJ (2007) Computed tomography—an increasing source of radiation exposure. N Engl J Med 357:2277–2284

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Chodick G, Kim KP, Shwarz M, Horev G, Shalev V, Ron E (2009) Radiation risks from pediatric computed tomography scanning. Pediatr Endocrinol Rev 7:29–36

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Pearce MS, Salotti JA, Little MP et al (2012) Radiation exposure from CT scans in childhood and subsequent risk of leukaemia and brain tumours: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet 380:499–505

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Slovis TL (2002) The ALARA concept in pediatric CT: myth or reality? Radiology 223:5–6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Kalender WA, Buchenau S, Deak P et al (2008) Technical approaches to the optimisation of CT. Phys Med 24:71–79

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Herzog C, Mulvihill DM, Nguyen SA et al (2008) Pediatric cardiovascular CT angiography: radiation dose reduction using automatic anatomic tube current modulation. AJR Am J Roentgenol 190:1232–1240

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. van der Wall EE, van Velzen JE, de Graaf FR, Jukema JW (2012) Reduction of radiation dose using 80 kV tube voltage: a feasible strategy? Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 28:425–428

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Wang D, Hu XH, Zhang SZ et al (2012) Image quality and dose performance of 80 kV low dose scan protocol in high-pitch spiral coronary CT angiography: feasibility study. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 28:415–423

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Kalender WA, Deak P, Kellermeier M, van Straten M, Vollmar SV (2009) Application- and patient size-dependent optimization of x-ray spectra for CT. Med Phys 36:993–1007

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Goo HW, Park IS, Ko JK, Kim YH, Seo DM, Park JJ (2005) Computed tomography for the diagnosis of congenital heart disease in pediatric and adult patients. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 21:347–365, discussion 67

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Lee T, Tsai IC, Fu YC et al (2006) Using multidetector-row CT in neonates with complex congenital heart disease to replace diagnostic cardiac catheterization for anatomical investigation: initial experiences in technical and clinical feasibility. Pediatr Radiol 36:1273–1282

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Paul JF, Abada HT (2007) Strategies for reduction of radiation dose in cardiac multislice CT. Eur Radiol 17:2028–2037

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Paul JF, Abada HT, Sigal-Cinqualbre A (2004) Should low-kilovoltage chest CT protocols be the rule for pediatric patients? AJR Am J Roentgenol 183:1172, author reply

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Karabulut N, Ariyurek M (2006) Low dose CT: practices and strategies of radiologists in university hospitals. Diagn Interv Radiol 12:3–8

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Siegel MJ, Schmidt B, Bradley D, Suess C, Hildebolt C (2004) Radiation dose and image quality in pediatric CT: effect of technical factors and phantom size and shape. Radiology 233:515–522

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Dong F, Davros W, Pozzuto J, Reid J (2012) Optimization of kilovoltage and tube current-exposure time product based on abdominal circumference: an oval phantom study for pediatric abdominal CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 199:670–676

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Brady SL, Kaufman RA (2012) Investigation of American Association of Physicists in Medicine Report 204 size-specific dose estimates for pediatric CT implementation. Radiology 265:832–840

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Zatelli G, Ciccarone A, Mazzocchi S, Fonda C (2008) A study of feasibility of dose reduction in paediatric MSCT scanning with a constant image quality. Phys Med 24:107–111

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Reid J, Gamberoni J, Dong F, Davros W (2010) Optimization of kVp and mAs for pediatric low-dose simulated abdominal CT: is it best to base parameter selection on object circumference? AJR Am J Roentgenol 195:1015–1020

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Ben Saad M, Rohnean A, Sigal-Cinqualbre A, Adler G, Paul JF (2009) Evaluation of image quality and radiation dose of thoracic and coronary dual-source CT in 110 infants with congenital heart disease. Pediatr Radiol 39:668–676

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Kim JE, Newman B (2010) Evaluation of a radiation dose reduction strategy for pediatric chest CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 194:1188–1193

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Sigal-Cinqualbre AB, Hennequin R, Abada HT, Chen X, Paul JF (2004) Low-kilovoltage multi-detector row chest CT in adults: feasibility and effect on image quality and iodine dose. Radiology 231:169–174

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Yu L, Bruesewitz MR, Thomas KB, Fletcher JG, Kofler JM, McCollough CH (2011) Optimal tube potential for radiation dose reduction in pediatric CT: principles, clinical implementations, and pitfalls. Radiographics 31:835–848

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Jean-François Paul, MD. The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article. The authors state that this work has not received any funding. No complex statistical methods were necessary for this paper. Institutional Review Board approval was obtained. Written informed consent was obtained from all subjects (parents of children) in this study. Methodology: prospective case-control experimental study, performed at one institution.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Radiology Department, Centre Chirurgical Marie Lannelongue, 133 Avenue de la Résistance, 92350, Le Plessis-Robinson, France

    Sébastien Durand

  2. Radiology Department, Institut Mutualiste Montsouris, 42 Bd Jourdan, 75014, Paris, France

    Jean-François Paul

Authors
  1. Sébastien Durand
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jean-François Paul
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jean-François Paul.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Durand, S., Paul, JF. Comparison of image quality between 70 kVp and 80 kVp: application to paediatric cardiac CT. Eur Radiol 24, 3003–3009 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-014-3341-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-014-3341-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation