Evidence Hub

Comparison of Photon-Counting and Energy-Integrating Detector CT for Evaluation of Myocardial Late Iodine Enhancement

J. Chamberlin, Zain Gowani, M. Hamouda, S. C. DiBona, S. Abrol, Brendan McNeal, Michael Gillespie, Dhiraj Baruah et al.

Radiology: Cardiothoracic Imaging, 2026

150 participants · 2 citations

Abstract

Purpose To compare photon-counting detector (PCD) CT and energy-integrating detector (EID) CT for the evaluation of myocardial late iodine enhancement (LIE), a CT marker of myocardial fibrosis. Materials and Methods This retrospective cohort study included patients undergoing preprocedural evaluation for ventricular ablation from April 2022 to March 2024. Quantitative region of interest measurements and qualitative Likert scale ratings were compared between modalities. Primary outcome metrics included signal intensity ratio, signal-to-noise ratio, and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR). A secondary analysis in a subset of 51 patients with MRI as the reference evaluated sensitivity and balanced accuracy relative to late gadolinium enhancement. Results A total of 150 patients (74 PCD CT, 76 EID CT) were included. PCD CT demonstrated higher CNR for both LIE to myocardium (4.2 [IQR, 1.7] vs 2.6 [IQR, 1.5]; P < .001) and blood pool to myocardium (4.0 [IQR, 1.7] vs 2.6 [IQR, 1.5]; P = .001) compared with EID CT. Mean qualitative image quality scores were higher for PCD CT than for EID CT (3.1 [IQR, 0.8] vs 2.5 [IQR, 0.8]; P < .001). PCD CT also showed lower rates of qualitatively degrading streak artifact (37.3% vs 55.3%; P = .04) and photon starvation (13.3% vs 32.9%; P = .008). In the subset of patients with MRI as a reference, per-segment sensitivity (80.1% vs 49.4%) and balanced accuracy (86.3% vs 72.9%; P < .001) were higher for PCD CT than for EID CT. Conclusion PCD CT improved…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 150 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free