Objectives Elevated repeat-scanning rates are reported for CT pulmonary angiography (CTPA). Individualised protocols optimise contrast- and radiation-doses, but whether this affects repeat scanning is unknown. The current study evaluates repeat-CTPA in a 24/7, state-of-the-art clinical-care setting. Materials and methods This is a retrospective observational single-centre study of consecutive CTPA acquired over a 5-year period during standard clinical care. The primary outcome is the repeat-scan rate. Repeat- and single-scan groups were compared for initial-scan characteristics (patient-related, CT-scanner, contrast-administration, kV-settings, regular hours/shifts, radiation-dose), and cumulative contrast- and radiation-doses. An expert radiologist panel retrospectively evaluated probable reasons for repeat scanning through visual, subjective assessment of initial-scan images. Results CTPA repeat rate was 3.1% (139/4467). Repeat- and single-scan groups significantly differed: age (55 ± 18 vs. 63 ± 17 years; p < 0.001), Body Mass Index (27 kg/m2 (IQR 7) vs. 25 kg/m2 (IQR 6); p = 0.022), radiation-dose (141 mGy∙cm (IQR 73) vs. 121 mGy∙cm (IQR 70); p < 0.001). Cumulative contrast- and radiation-doses were: 96 mL (IQR 31) vs. 48 mL (IQR 22) (p < 0.001); 0.36 gI/kg (IQR 0.11) vs. 0.18 gI/kg (IQR 0.51) (p < 0.001); 272 mGy∙cm (IQR 69) vs. 121 mGy∙cm (IQR 70) (p < 0.001). Retrospective expert-consensus reasons for repeat scanning were: 31/133 patient-related; 28/133 multifactorial; 12/133 contrast/scan-protocol; 4/133 operator-error; 2/133 unidentified. 56/133 (42%) initial scans were retrospectively deemed diagnostic-quality, and these significantly differed from other repeat-categories in patient characteristics age (51 ± 15 vs. 57 ± 19 years; p = 0.045) and sex (64.3% vs. 50.6% female; p = 0.045), and in contrast volume (48 mL (IQR 17) vs. 46 mL (IQR 24); p = 0.031). Conclusion Individualised scan protocols yielded diagnostic images around the clock, with repeat scanning well within ranges published in the literature. Retrospective expert evaluation suggests repeat rates as low as 1.2% may be possible. Repeat- and single-scan groups significantly differed in patient characteristics, and repeat-scanning reasons were mostly patient-related. These results suggest further tailoring protocols to (younger, female) patients might be beneficial in helping to further reduce CTPA-repeats. Key Points <Emphasis Type="BoldItalic">Question</Emphasis> CT pulmonary angiography (CTPA) is subject to relatively high repeat-scanning rates, but it is not known how state-of-the-art CTPA and individualised protocols perform in clinical practice today. <Emphasis Type="BoldItalic">Findings</Emphasis> During 5 years of clinical practice the repeat rate was 3%; retrospective expert image-evaluation suggests a repeat rate as low as 1.2% may be possible. <Emphasis Type="BoldItalic">Clinical relevance</Emphasis> Repeat- and single-scan groups significantly differed in patient characteristics, and reasons for repeat scanning were mostly patient-related. Further tailoring protocols to (younger, female) patients may be the best focus to help reduce CTPA-repeats, improve safety, and reduce logistic burden. Graphical Abstract

Computed tomography pulmonary angiography in around-the-clock clinical care with individualised scan protocols: a 5-year observational study on incidence and causes of repeat scanning

期刊论文
出版模式：

开放获取
发表日期：

2025年10月18日

查看全文

Estelle C. Nijssen,
Bibi Martens,
Babs M. Hendriks,
Hester A. Gietema,
Joachim E. Wildberger,
Cécile R. L. P. N. Jeukens

摘要

Objectives

Elevated repeat-scanning rates are reported for CT pulmonary angiography (CTPA). Individualised protocols optimise contrast- and radiation-doses, but whether this affects repeat scanning is unknown. The current study evaluates repeat-CTPA in a 24/7, state-of-the-art clinical-care setting.

Materials and methods

This is a retrospective observational single-centre study of consecutive CTPA acquired over a 5-year period during standard clinical care. The primary outcome is the repeat-scan rate. Repeat- and single-scan groups were compared for initial-scan characteristics (patient-related, CT-scanner, contrast-administration, kV-settings, regular hours/shifts, radiation-dose), and cumulative contrast- and radiation-doses. An expert radiologist panel retrospectively evaluated probable reasons for repeat scanning through visual, subjective assessment of initial-scan images.

Results

CTPA repeat rate was 3.1% (139/4467). Repeat- and single-scan groups significantly differed: age (55 ± 18 vs. 63 ± 17 years; p < 0.001), Body Mass Index (27 kg/m² (IQR 7) vs. 25 kg/m² (IQR 6); p = 0.022), radiation-dose (141 mGy∙cm (IQR 73) vs. 121 mGy∙cm (IQR 70); p < 0.001). Cumulative contrast- and radiation-doses were: 96 mL (IQR 31) vs. 48 mL (IQR 22) (p < 0.001); 0.36 gI/kg (IQR 0.11) vs. 0.18 gI/kg (IQR 0.51) (p < 0.001); 272 mGy∙cm (IQR 69) vs. 121 mGy∙cm (IQR 70) (p < 0.001).

Retrospective expert-consensus reasons for repeat scanning were: 31/133 patient-related; 28/133 multifactorial; 12/133 contrast/scan-protocol; 4/133 operator-error; 2/133 unidentified. 56/133 (42%) initial scans were retrospectively deemed diagnostic-quality, and these significantly differed from other repeat-categories in patient characteristics age (51 ± 15 vs. 57 ± 19 years; p = 0.045) and sex (64.3% vs. 50.6% female; p = 0.045), and in contrast volume (48 mL (IQR 17) vs. 46 mL (IQR 24); p = 0.031).

Conclusion

Individualised scan protocols yielded diagnostic images around the clock, with repeat scanning well within ranges published in the literature. Retrospective expert evaluation suggests repeat rates as low as 1.2% may be possible. Repeat- and single-scan groups significantly differed in patient characteristics, and repeat-scanning reasons were mostly patient-related. These results suggest further tailoring protocols to (younger, female) patients might be beneficial in helping to further reduce CTPA-repeats.

Key Points

Question CT pulmonary angiography (CTPA) is subject to relatively high repeat-scanning rates, but it is not known how state-of-the-art CTPA and individualised protocols perform in clinical practice today.

Findings During 5 years of clinical practice the repeat rate was 3%; retrospective expert image-evaluation suggests a repeat rate as low as 1.2% may be possible.

Clinical relevance Repeat- and single-scan groups significantly differed in patient characteristics, and reasons for repeat scanning were mostly patient-related. Further tailoring protocols to (younger, female) patients may be the best focus to help reduce CTPA-repeats, improve safety, and reduce logistic burden.

Graphical Abstract