Infrapopliteal Segments on Lower Extremity CTA: Prospective Intraindividual Comparison of Energy-Integrating Detector CT and Photon-Counting Detector CT.

BACKGROUND. The higher spatial resolution and image contrast for iodine-containing tissues of photon-counting detector (PCD) CT may address challenges in evaluating small calcified vessels when performing lower extremity CTA by energy-integrating detector (EID) CTA. OBJECTIVE. The purpose of the study was to compare the evaluation of infrapopliteal vasculature between lower extremity CTA performed using EID CT and PCD CT. METHODS. This prospective study included 32 patients (mean age, 69.7 ± 11.3 [SD] years; 27 men, five women) who underwent clinically indicated lower extremity EID CTA between April 2021 and March 2022; participants underwent investigational lower extremity PCD CTA later the same day as EID CTA using a reduced IV contrast media dose. Two radiologists independently reviewed examinations in two sessions, each containing a random combination of EID CTA and PCD CTA examinations; the readers assessed the number of visualized fibular perforators, characteristics of stenoses at 11 infrapopliteal segmental levels, and subjective arterial sharpness. RESULTS. Mean IV contrast media dose was 60.0 ± 11.0 (SD) mL for PCD CTA versus 139.6 ± 11.8 mL for EID CTA (p < .001). The number of identified fibular perforators per lower extremity was significantly higher for PCD CTA than for EID CTA for reader 1 (R1) (mean ± SD, 6.4 ± 3.2 vs 4.2 ± 2.4; p < .001) and reader 2 (R2) (8.8 ± 3.4 vs 7.6 ± 3.3; p = .04). Reader confidence for assessing stenosis was significantly higher for PCD CTA than for EID CTA for R1 (mean ± SD, 82.3 ± 20.3 vs 78.0 ± 20.2; p < .001) but not R2 (89.8 ± 16.7 vs 90.6 ± 7.1; p = .24). The number of segments per lower extremity with total occlusion was significantly lower for PCD CTA than for EID CTA for R2 (mean ± SD, 0.5 ± 1.3 vs 0.9 ± 1.7; p = .04) but not R1 (0.6 ± 1.3 vs 1.0 ± 1.5; p = .07). The number of segments per lower extremity with clinically significant nonocclusive stenosis was significantly higher for PCD CTA than for EID CTA for R1 (mean ± SD, 2.2 ± 2.2 vs 1.6 ± 1.7; p = .01) but not R2 (1.1 ± 2.0 vs 1.1 ± 1.4; p = .89). Arterial sharpness was significantly greater for PCD CTA than for EID CTA for R1 (mean ± SD, 3.2 ± 0.5 vs 1.8 ± 0.5; p < .001) and R2 (3.2 ± 0.4 vs 1.7 ± 0.8; p < .001). CONCLUSION. PCD CTA yielded multiple advantages relative to EID CTA for visualizing small infrapopliteal vessels and characterizing associated plaque. CLINICAL IMPACT. The use of PCD CTA may improve vascular evaluation in patients with peripheral arterial disease.