Detection of Post-COVID-19 Lung Abnormalities: Photon-counting CT versus Same-Day Energy-integrating Detector CT

Florian Prayer(Medical University of Vienna), Patric Kienast(Medical University of Vienna), Andreas Strassl(Medical University of Vienna), Philipp T. Moser(Medical University of Vienna), Dominik Bernitzky(Medical University of Vienna), Christopher Milacek(Medical University of Vienna), Mariann Gyöngyösi(Medical University of Vienna), Daria Kifjak(Medical University of Vienna), Sebastian Röhrich(Medical University of Vienna), Lucian Beer(Medical University of Vienna), Martin L. Watzenböck(Medical University of Vienna), Ruxandra‐Iulia Milos(Medical University of Vienna), Christian Wassipaul(Medical University of Vienna), Daniela Gompelmann(Medical University of Vienna), Christian Herold(Medical University of Vienna), Helmut Prosch(Medical University of Vienna), Benedikt H. Heidinger(Medical University of Vienna)
Radiology
November 29, 2022
Cited by 47Open Access
Full Text

Abstract

Background Photon-counting detector (PCD) CT enables ultra-high-resolution lung imaging and may shed light on morphologic correlates of persistent symptoms after COVID-19. Purpose To compare PCD CT with energy-integrating detector (EID) CT for noninvasive assessment of post-COVID-19 lung abnormalities. Materials and Methods For this prospective study, adult participants with one or more COVID-19–related persisting symptoms (resting or exertional dyspnea, cough, fatigue) underwent same-day EID and PCD CT between April 2022 and June 2022. The 1.0-mm EID CT images and, subsequently, 1.0-, 0.4-, and 0.2-mm PCD CT images were reviewed for the presence of lung abnormalities. Subjective and objective EID and PCD CT image quality were evaluated using a five-point Likert scale (−2 to 2) and lung signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs). Results Twenty participants (mean age, 54 years ± 16 [SD]; 10 men) were included. EID CT showed post-COVID-19 lung abnormalities in 15 of 20 (75%) participants, with a median involvement of 10% of lung volume [IQR, 0%–45%] and 3.5 lobes [IQR, 0–5]. Ground-glass opacities and linear bands (10 of 20 participants [50%] for both) were the most frequent findings at EID CT. PCD CT revealed additional lung abnormalities in 10 of 20 (50%) participants, with the most common being bronchiectasis (10 of 20 [50%]). Subjective image quality was improved for 1.0-mm PCD versus 1.0-mm EID CT images (median, 1; IQR, 1–2; P < .001) and 0.4-mm versus 1.0-mm PCD CT images (median, 1; IQR, 1–1; P < .001) but not for 0.4-mm versus 0.2-mm PCD CT images (median, 0; IQR, 0–0.5; P = .26). PCD CT delivered higher lung SNR versus EID CT for 1.0-mm images (mean difference, 0.53 ± 0.96; P = .03) but lower SNR for 0.4-mm versus 1.0-mm images and 0.2-mm vs 0.4-mm images (−1.52 ± 0.68 [P < .001] and −1.15 ± 0.43 [P < .001], respectively). Conclusion Photon-counting detector CT outperformed energy-integrating detector CT in the visualization of subtle post-COVID-19 lung abnormalities and image quality. © RSNA, 2023 Supplemental material is available for this article.


Related Papers

No related papers found

Powered by citation graph analysis