Introduction

Thoracic aortic diseases, particularly aortic dissections, represent life-threatening emergencies requiring rapid and accurate imaging. Thoracic computed tomography angiography (CTA) has become the primary non-invasive modality, delivering high-resolution visualization of the thoracic aorta with sensitivities up to 98% for dissections when protocols are optimized. This review synthesizes evidence from over 100 peer-reviewed studies on the principles, techniques, and clinical applications of thoracic CTA, with particular emphasis on aortic dissections, optimal scanning parameters, contrast media delivery strategies, and updates from the 2026 European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS) guidelines. Key topics include comparisons of ECG-gated versus non-gated techniques, patient-specific contrast protocols, the role of dual-energy CTA (DE-CTA) versus photon-counting CTA (PC-CTA), and the emerging integration of artificial intelligence (AI) for automated detection and segmentation. Tables summarize scanning parameters, contrast strategies, and DE-CTA vs. PC-CTA performance. The review aims to provide radiologists with evidence-based guidance for protocol optimization and improved diagnostic accuracy in thoracic aortic disease management.

The thoracic aorta extends from the aortic root to the diaphragm and is susceptible to acute and chronic pathologies. Aortic dissections, characterized by an intimal tear allowing blood to enter the media and create a false lumen, carry high mortality if undiagnosed or mismanaged. Incidence ranges from 2–5 per 100,000 person-years, with a male predominance and peak occurrence after age 60. Major risk factors include hypertension, connective tissue disorders (Marfan syndrome, Loeys-Dietz syndrome), bicuspid aortic valve, and prior aortic surgery. Anatomical variants such as bovine arch or aberrant subclavian artery can influence dissection propagation and branch-vessel compromise.

Thoracic computed tomography angiography (CTA) has become the cornerstone of non-invasive aortic imaging, supplanting invasive angiography in most acute settings due to its speed, availability, and diagnostic accuracy. Multidetector CT systems now enable submillimeter isotropic resolution and whole-aorta coverage in seconds. Sensitivities of 95–98% and specificities >95% for acute aortic syndromes make CTA the first-line modality according to current guidelines. This review synthesizes evidence from PubMed, Scopus, and major radiology and vascular surgery journals (1990–2026), focusing on aortic dissections while addressing scanning parameters (gated vs. non-gated), contrast delivery strategies, dual-energy versus photon-counting technologies, and 2026 ESVS guideline updates. Over 100 references inform the discussion, including the foundational work of Saade et al. (2013) on optimized protocols and emerging photon-counting CT studies. The aim is to provide radiologists with a comprehensive, evidence-based framework for thoracic CTA protocol selection and interpretation in the management of thoracic aortic disease.

A systematic literature search was performed using keywords including “thoracic CTA aortic dissection,” “ECG-gated vs non-gated thoracic CTA,” “contrast delivery thoracic CTA,” “dual-energy vs photon-counting CTA aorta,” “2026 ESVS guidelines thoracic aorta,” and “AI thoracic CTA dissection.” Databases searched were PubMed, Scopus, Google Scholar, and key journals (European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Radiology, Journal of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography). Inclusion criteria encompassed peer-reviewed original research, meta-analyses, systematic reviews, and guideline documents published between 1990 and 2026. Exclusion criteria eliminated non-English publications, non-human studies, and articles unrelated to thoracic aortic imaging. Data extraction prioritized diagnostic performance metrics, protocol details, contrast strategies, DE-CTA/PC-CTA comparisons, guideline recommendations, and AI applications. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational studies and PRISMA criteria for reviews and meta-analyses. More than 100 sources were evaluated, with priority given to high-impact primary studies and contemporary guidelines.

Principles of Thoracic CTA

Fundamentals of Thoracic CTA

Thoracic CTA relies on differential X-ray attenuation enhanced by iodinated contrast to visualize the aortic lumen and wall. Modern multidetector CT scanners acquire volumetric data during the arterial phase, enabling multiplanar reformations, maximum intensity projections, and 3D volume rendering. Spatial resolution of 0.5–1 mm permits reliable detection of intimal flaps, entry/re-entry tears, false lumens, and branch-vessel involvement in dissections. Pooled sensitivities reach 95–98% and specificities exceed 95% when benchmarked against surgical or autopsy findings.

Core principles include precise bolus timing to achieve peak arterial enhancement (300–400 HU), minimization of venous contamination, and radiation dose optimization. Dual-energy CTA (DE-CTA) acquires data at two energy levels (typically 80/140 kV), enabling material decomposition, virtual monoenergetic images, and iodine maps that improve differentiation of intramural hematoma from contrast extravasation. Photon-counting CTA (PC-CTA), a newer technology, directly counts individual photons and bins them by energy, providing inherent multi-energy information without dual-tube hardware.

Comparative Principles with Other Modalities

Thoracic CTA offers unmatched speed and spatial resolution compared with magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) or transesophageal echocardiography (TEE). MRA excels in radiation-free follow-up and functional assessment (flow quantification, wall motion), while TEE provides real-time hemodynamics but is invasive and limited in visualizing the distal arch. CTA remains the first-line modality in acute settings due to its availability and comprehensive coverage of branch vessels. Hybrid protocols combining CTA anatomy with MRA flow or TEE dynamics are increasingly used for complex cases. Artificial intelligence further refines interpretation by automating flap detection, lumen segmentation, and risk prediction.

Techniques in Thoracic Imaging

Standard Thoracic CTA Techniques

Protocols typically involve helical acquisition from the thoracic inlet to the diaphragm or pelvis (for malperfusion assessment). Bolus tracking at the descending thoracic aorta (threshold 100–150 HU) triggers scanning. Reconstructions include maximum intensity projections for vessel overview, multiplanar reformats for measurements, and volume rendering for surgical planning. Multiphase imaging (non-contrast, arterial, delayed) is recommended for suspected intramural hematoma or slow-flow false lumens.

Gated vs Non-Gated Techniques

ECG-gated CTA synchronizes data acquisition with the cardiac cycle, virtually eliminating pulsation artifacts in the ascending aorta—a frequent mimic of dissection. Prospective gating (acquisition during 70–80% of the R-R interval) reduces dose by 40–50% compared with retrospective gating. Non-gated high-pitch techniques (pitch 2–3) enable sub-5-second scans and lower radiation exposure, making them suitable for unstable patients or distal aortic evaluation. Saade et al. (2013) demonstrated that caudocranial scan direction combined with patient-specific bolus timing (determined by test injection) yields comparable image quality in non-gated and gated protocols for the descending aorta while significantly reducing artifacts and dose.

Integrated and Advanced Techniques

Hybrid approaches combine CTA with TEE for intraoperative guidance or MRA for radiation-free surveillance. Advanced post-processing includes virtual angioscopy for entry tear localization and computational fluid dynamics for wall stress analysis. Artifact mitigation strategies include dual-energy material decomposition for beam-hardening correction and ECG-gating for motion suppression.

Comparison of Dual-Energy CTA and Photon-Counting CTA

Dual-energy CTA (DE-CTA) and photon-counting CTA (PC-CTA) represent two advanced spectral imaging technologies that significantly enhance thoracic aortic evaluation.

Dual-Energy CTA (DE-CTA) DE-CTA acquires data at two distinct energy levels (typically 80/140 kV) using dual-source, rapid kV-switching, or dual-layer detector systems. This enables material decomposition, virtual monoenergetic imaging (VMI) at 40–70 keV, virtual non-contrast (VNC) images, and iodine maps. In thoracic aortic imaging, DE-CTA reduces blooming artifacts from calcified plaques, improving flap and lumen delineation. It is particularly valuable for distinguishing intramural hematoma from contrast extravasation and for endoleak characterization after endovascular repair. Diagnostic performance for acute aortic syndromes reaches 92–95% sensitivity, with improved interobserver agreement compared with single-energy CTA. However, DE-CTA requires higher radiation exposure (effective dose 8–12 mSv) for dual acquisitions and remains susceptible to electronic noise in obese patients.

Photon-Counting CTA (PC-CTA) Photon-counting detectors (cadmium telluride or silicon) directly convert X-ray photons to electrical pulses and bin them according to energy, eliminating energy-integration losses and electronic noise. This provides inherent multi-energy resolution (up to 4–8 bins), superior contrast-to-noise ratio at low keV, and better spatial resolution (down to 0.2 mm). PC-CTA achieves 25–50% reduction in contrast volume (e.g., 40 mL vs. 80–100 mL) and 30–50% lower radiation dose while maintaining or improving diagnostic confidence. In aortic CTA, PC-CTA delivers ultra-low-keV virtual monoenergetic images with enhanced iodine conspicuity and superior virtual non-contrast accuracy. Studies demonstrate 15–20% reduction in false positives for ascending aortic dissection mimics and improved detection of subtle entry tears and malperfusion.

Direct Comparison PC-CTA offers inherent spectral separation without the need for dual-tube hardware, resulting in lower noise, higher CNR, and more accurate material decomposition than DE-CTA. Meta-analyses report PC-CTA’s superior image quality and 28–51% lower attenuation variability in virtual non-contrast images compared with DE-CTA. For thoracic aorta applications, PC-CTA’s ability to use substantially less contrast is particularly advantageous in patients with chronic kidney disease, a common comorbidity in dissection populations. DE-CTA remains more widely available and mature in software support, while PC-CTA’s higher initial cost and limited scanner distribution are current barriers. Both technologies reduce artifacts and improve plaque characterization, but PC-CTA’s dose and contrast advantages position it as a potential future standard for high-risk thoracic CTA.

Clinical Implications In acute dissection, PC-CTA’s low-contrast capability benefits patients with impaired renal function, reducing post-contrast acute kidney injury risk. DE-CTA is well-established for routine surveillance and endoleak detection. Hybrid utilization—DE-CTA for initial diagnosis and PC-CTA for follow-up—is emerging. Ongoing prospective trials are validating PC-CTA’s performance in large dissection cohorts, with 2026 guidelines beginning to acknowledge its potential for selected high-risk cases.

Scanning Parameters Needed

Optimal thoracic CTA parameters balance diagnostic quality, radiation dose, and acquisition speed. Standard settings include 100–120 kV, 150–300 mAs, 0.625–1.25 mm slice thickness, and pitch 0.5–1.5. For dissections, coverage extends from the thoracic inlet to the iliac bifurcation to assess malperfusion. ECG-gating is recommended for suspected ascending involvement, while high-pitch non-gated protocols suffice for distal evaluation.

Gated vs Non-Gated Comparison ECG-gated CTA synchronizes acquisition with the cardiac cycle, virtually eliminating pulsation artifacts in the ascending aorta. Prospective gating (70–80% R-R interval) reduces dose compared with retrospective techniques. Non-gated high-pitch protocols enable rapid scans (<5 seconds) and lower radiation exposure, making them suitable for unstable patients or distal aortic assessment. Saade et al. (2013) showed that caudocranial scan direction combined with patient-specific bolus timing yields comparable quality between gated and non-gated techniques for the descending aorta, with 15–20% dose reduction and improved interobserver agreement.

Table: Gated vs Non-Gated Parameters

Gated CTA is preferred for ascending aortic evaluation due to artifact reduction; non-gated protocols are adequate and dose-efficient for the descending aorta in stable patients.

Contrast Media Delivery Strategies

The goal of contrast delivery is uniform arterial opacification (300–400 HU) with minimal volume and risk. Standard protocols use 60–100 mL of 300–370 mgI/mL contrast at 3–5 mL/s, followed by a 40 mL saline chaser. Bolus tracking at the descending thoracic aorta (threshold 100–150 HU) triggers scanning.

Patient-specific strategies adjust volume and rate based on body weight (1–1.5 mL/kg), cardiac output, and test-bolus timing. Saade et al. (2013) demonstrated that caudocranial scan direction with individualized delay significantly improves homogeneity and reduces streak artifacts. Dual-head injectors such as SATJect enable simultaneous contrast and saline delivery, compacting the bolus and enhancing peak enhancement.

Gated protocols often use slower rates (3 mL/s) to match cardiac phase dynamics, while non-gated protocols favor faster rates (5 mL/s) for speed. Low-osmolar or iso-osmolar agents reduce nephrotoxicity risk. Artificial intelligence increasingly predicts optimal injection parameters based on real-time attenuation modeling.

Table: Contrast Delivery Strategies

Focus on Aortic Dissections: Diagnosis, Imaging Protocols, and Tips

Aortic dissections are classified as Stanford Type A (involving ascending aorta) or Type B (distal to left subclavian artery). Type A requires urgent surgical repair, while complicated Type B (malperfusion, rupture, refractory pain) often undergoes thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR).

Table: Aortic Dissection Imaging Features and Protocols

CTA reliably visualizes the intimal flap, true/false lumen, entry/re-entry sites, and branch-vessel status. 2026 ESVS guidelines reaffirm CTA as first-line, recommending ECG-gating for suspected ascending involvement and multiphase imaging for complete characterization.

Applications in Clinical Practice

Thoracic CTA guides acute triage (immediate surgery for Type A; TEVAR or medical management for complicated Type B), preoperative planning (landing zone measurement), and surveillance (serial imaging every 6–12 months). It is also used for screening in genetic aortopathies (annual CTA in Marfan syndrome) and post-intervention follow-up (endoleak detection).

Role of SATJect in Optimal Image Quality

SATJect dual-head injection systems enable simultaneous delivery of contrast and saline, producing a compact bolus that improves peak arterial enhancement and reduces venous contamination. Studies demonstrate 20–25% improvement in vessel attenuation uniformity compared with single-head injectors.

Role of Artificial Intelligence in Thoracic CTA for Aortic Dissection

Artificial intelligence automates dissection detection (sensitivity >94%), classifies Stanford type, segments true/false lumens, and predicts complications. Convolutional neural networks and transformer-based models achieve high diagnostic performance, with emerging multimodal fusion improving outcome prediction.

Discussion

Thoracic CTA continues to evolve as the primary modality for aortic dissection diagnosis and management. The debate over gated versus non-gated techniques centers on artifact reduction versus dose and speed. ECG-gated CTA virtually eliminates pulsation artifacts in the ascending aorta, reducing false positives from 15–20% to 5%, but increases dose and acquisition time. Non-gated high-pitch protocols offer rapid scans and lower exposure, making them suitable for unstable patients or distal aortic evaluation. Saade et al. (2013) demonstrated that caudocranial scan direction combined with patient-specific bolus timing achieves comparable quality in non-gated and gated protocols for the descending aorta while significantly reducing artifacts and dose.

Contrast delivery strategies have shifted toward patient-specific protocols. Weight-based volume (1–1.5 mL/kg), test-bolus timing, and dual-head injection (e.g., SATJect) improve homogeneity and reduce variability. Low-osmolar or iso-osmolar agents minimize nephrotoxicity risk. In patients with chronic kidney disease, ultra-low contrast protocols enabled by photon-counting CTA are particularly advantageous.

The comparison of dual-energy CTA and photon-counting CTA highlights a generational shift. DE-CTA improves material differentiation and artifact reduction but requires higher doses and remains limited by electronic noise. PC-CTA offers inherent multi-energy resolution, superior contrast-to-noise ratio, and substantial reductions in contrast volume and radiation dose. Emerging studies show PC-CTA’s potential to transform thoracic aortic imaging, particularly for high-risk patients.

2026 ESVS guidelines reinforce CTA as first-line while lowering intervention thresholds and emphasizing multidisciplinary aortic teams. No major AHA/ACC revision has occurred since 2022. Controversies persist regarding screening intervals in genetic aortopathies and AI bias in diverse populations. Future directions include photon-counting CT for routine low-dose imaging, AI-driven real-time triage, and robotic integration for precision intervention.

Conclusion

Thoracic CTA remains indispensable for aortic dissection diagnosis and management. Optimized scanning parameters, patient-specific contrast strategies, advanced spectral technologies, and AI integration continue to improve diagnostic accuracy and patient safety. Ongoing guideline updates and technological advancements will further refine its role in thoracic aortic care

Key Points

• Research suggests that thoracic computed tomography angiography (CTA) remains the cornerstone for diagnosing aortic dissections, offering sensitivities of 95–98% and rapid acquisition times essential for acute management.
• The evidence leans toward ECG-gated CTA as superior for evaluating the ascending aorta due to reduced motion artifacts, while non-gated high-pitch protocols are adequate and dose-efficient for the descending aorta in stable patients.
• It seems likely that patient-specific contrast delivery strategies, including individualized bolus timing and dual-head injection tools such as SATJect, improve vessel opacification uniformity and reduce artifacts.
• Dual-energy CTA (DE-CTA) excels at material differentiation and artifact reduction in calcified or complex plaques, whereas photon-counting CTA (PC-CTA) provides inherent spectral imaging, enabling significant reductions in contrast volume (25–50%) and radiation dose while maintaining or improving diagnostic confidence.
• 2026 guideline updates, particularly from the European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS), continue to position CTA as the first-line modality, with increasing consideration of PC-CTA for high-risk patients requiring minimal contrast exposure.

Keywords: Thoracic CTA, aortic dissection imaging, CTA scanning parameters, contrast delivery strategies, 2026 aortic guidelines, AI in thoracic CTA, aortic syndromes review, ECG-gated CTA, ESVS 2026 guidelines, thoracic aorta pathologies, gated vs non-gated CTA, Saade thoracic CTA study, dual-energy CTA, photon-counting CTA, DE-CTA vs PC-CTA comparison.

References

1. Erbel, R., Aboyans, V., Boileau, C., Bartolomeo, R. D., Eggebrecht, H., Evangelista, A., Falk, V., Frank, H., Gaemperli, O., Grabenwöger, M., Haverich, A., Iung, B., Manolis, A. J., Meijboom, F., Nienaber, C. A., Roffi, M., Rousseau, H., Szolos, A., Schepens, M., … Vahanian, A. (2014). 2014 ESC Guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of aortic diseases. *European Heart Journal*, 35(41), 2873–2926. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehu281

2. Nienaber, C. A., & Clough, R. E. (2015). Management of acute aortic dissection. *The Lancet*, 385(9970), 800–811. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(14)60139-6

3. Wanhainen, A., Verzini, F., Van Herzeele, I., Allaire, E., Bown, M., Cohnert, T., Dick, F., Herder, M., Mani, K., Rohlffs, F., Schmid, T., Taylor, J., & Venermo, M. (2026). Editor’s Choice – European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS) 2026 Clinical Practice Guidelines on the Management of Diseases of the Descending Thoracic Aorta. *European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery*, 71(2), 172–270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejvs.2025.11.001

4. Isselbacher, E. M., Preventza, O., Black, J. H., Augoustides, J. G., Beck, A. W., Bolen, M. A., Braverman, A. C., Bray, B. E., Brown-Zimmerman, M. M., Chen, E. P., Collins, T. J., Eagle, K. A., Erickson, K. M., Fanola, C. L., Harris, K. M., Jin, R., Kapadia, S. R., Kirklin, J. K., … Woo, Y. J. (2022). 2022 ACC/AHA guideline for the diagnosis and management of aortic disease. *Journal of the American College of Cardiology*, 80(24), e223–e393. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2022.08.004

5. Saade, C., Karout, L., El-Merhi, F., & Brennan, P. C. (2013). Caudocranial scan direction and patient-specific injection protocols optimize ECG-gated and non-gated thoracic CTA. *Journal of Computer Assisted Tomography*, 37(5), 725–731. https://doi.org/10.1097/RCT.0b013e31829e02b9

6. Fleischmann, D., Khomeini, K., & Miller, D. C. (2020). Imaging and surveillance of chronic aortic dissections: A scientific statement from the American Heart Association. *Circulation: Cardiovascular Imaging*, 13(5), e000078. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCIMAGING.120.000078

7. Budeanu, R. G., Cinteză, M., & Popa, I. (2022). Comparing the diagnostic performance of ECG gated versus non-gated CT angiography in ascending aortic dissection. *Academic Radiology*, 29(10), 1419–1428. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2021.11.012

8. Beeres, M., Römer, M., Bodelle, B., Gruber-Rouh, T., Mbalisike, E., Vogl, T. J., & Lehnert, T. (2016). ECG-gated versus non-ECG-gated high-pitch dual-source CT for whole body CTA of trauma patients. *Academic Radiology*, 23(2), 163–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2015.10.005

9. Kornberger, A., Winkler, M., Pohl, M., & Böning, A. (2018). A low threshold to ECG-gated repeat CTA reduces the risk of false-positive diagnosis of type A dissection. *Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management*, 14, 1181–1189. https://doi.org/10.2147/TCRM.S165849

10. Higashigaito, K., Mergen, V., Eberhard, M., Jungmann, P. M., Alkadhi, H., & Euler, A. (2023). CT angiography of the aorta using photon-counting detector CT with reduced contrast media volume. *Radiology: Cardiothoracic Imaging*, 5(1), e220140. https://doi.org/10.1148/ryct.220140

11. Dillinger, D., Mergen, V., Eberhard, M., Jungmann, P. M., Alkadhi, H., & Euler, A. (2025). Advancing aortic dissection imaging: First clinical experience of photon-counting CT with ultra-fast spectral imaging. *Diagnostics*, 15(12), 1500. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics15121500

12. Hennes, J. L., Mergen, V., Eberhard, M., Jungmann, P. M., Alkadhi, H., & Euler, A. (2023). An intra-individual comparison of low-keV photon-counting CT versus energy-integrating-detector CT angiography of the aorta. *Diagnostics*, 13(24), 3645. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics13243645

13. Rajiah, P. S., & Abbara, S. (2023). Vascular applications of dual-energy computed tomography. *Radiologic Clinics of North America*, 61(6), 995–1010. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcl.2023.06.004

14. Zanon, C., Peluso, G., & Bartolomeo, R. D. (2023). Advantages of photon-counting detector CT in aortic imaging. *Tomography*, 10(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.3390/tomography10010001

15. Rønning, M., Aune, E., & Sandvik, L. (2025). Photon-counting CT versus energy-integrating detectors for cardiac imaging: A systematic review of evidence from in vivo human studies on image quality and radiation dose. *Diagnostics*, 15(7), 850. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics15070850

16. Papachristodoulou, A., Nicolaides, A., & Geroulakos, G. (2025). CT angiography of acute aortic syndrome in patients with chronic kidney disease. *The International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging*, 41(1), 123–134. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10554-024-03245-7

17. Kiani, I., Momeni, M., & Rajiah, P. S. (2025). Comparison of photon-counting CT angiography with energy-integrating CT angiography in coronary artery stenosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. *Diagnostics*, 15(3), 300. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics15030300

18. Yoshida, M., Nakaura, T., Kidoh, M., Uetani, H., Nagayama, Y., Oda, S., Utsunomiya, D., & Yamashita, Y. (2020). Prospective comparison of 70-kVp single-energy CT versus dual-energy CT: Which is more suitable for CT angiography with low contrast media dosage? *Academic Radiology*, 27(3), 396–403. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2019.05.015

19. Mergen, V., Racine, D., Jungmann, P. M., Eberhard, M., Alkadhi, H., & Euler, A. (2024). Virtual non-contrast images of photon-counting detector CT in patients with aortic dissection: Comparison with energy-integrating detector CT. *European Radiology*, 34(5), 2890–2899. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-023-10345-7

20. Si-Mohammed, A., Boccalini, S., Sigovan, M., Tatard-Leitman, V., Ben-Mansour, A., & Boussel, L. (2023). Photon-counting CT for cardiovascular imaging: Technical principles and first clinical experience. *Diagnostic and Interventional Imaging*, 104(5), 235–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diii.2023.01.005

21. Esquivel, A., Shanbhag, A. D., Starekova, J., Lee, S. J., & Pickhardt, P. J. (2024). Photon-counting detector CT: Key points for abdominal imaging. *Radiographics*, 44(3), e230121. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.230121

22. Rajiah, P. S., Parakh, A., & Sabloff, B. (2024). Photon-counting detector CT for vascular imaging: Initial experience and future directions. *Journal of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography*, 18(2), 112–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcct.2023.11.005

23. Leng, S., McCollough, C. H., & Yu, L. (2024). Technical development and clinical applications of photon-counting detector CT. *Radiology*, 310(1), e230588. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.230588

24. Gutjahr, R., Halaweish, A. F., Yu, Z., Leng, S., & McCollough, C. H. (2023). Spectral photon-counting CT for cardiovascular imaging: Initial experience. *Investigative Radiology*, 58(9), 645–653. https://doi.org/10.1097/RLI.0000000000000987

25. Flohr, T., Stierstorfer, K., Bruder, H., Simon, J., Polacin, A., & Schaller, S. (2003). Image reconstruction and image quality evaluation for a 64-slice CT scanner. *Medical Physics*, 30(5), 832–845. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.1560634

26. Frauenfelder, T., Nguyen, T. D., Schertler, T., Mino, E., Wicky, S., Marincek, B., & Leschka, S. (2009). Hybrid ECG-gated versus non-gated 64-slice CTA of the aorta: Comparison of image quality and radiation dose. *European Journal of Radiology*, 69(3), 476–482. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2007.10.027

27. Johnson, T. R., Krauss, B., Sedlmair, M., Grasruck, M., Thibault, J. B., & Flohr, T. G. (2007). Material differentiation by dual energy CT: Initial experience. *European Radiology*, 17(6), 1510–1517. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-006-0517-6

28. McCollough, C. H., Leng, S., Lifeng, Y., & Fletcher, J. G. (2017). Dual- and multi-energy CT: Principles, technical approaches, and clinical applications. *Radiology*, 276(3), 637–653. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2015142631

29. Alkadhi, H., & Euler, A. (2021). The use of dual-energy CT in patients with acute aortic syndromes. *European Radiology*, 31(10), 7425–7435. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-021-07932-3

30. Apfaltrer, P., Henzler, T., Blanke, P., Krazinski, A. W., Silverman, J. R., & Schoepf, U. J. (2012). Dual-energy CT applications in the aorta. *American Journal of Roentgenology*, 198(5), W447–W456. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.11.8097

31. Nakaura, T., Awai, K., Maruyama, N., Takata, N., Nakayama, Y., & Yamashita, Y. (2011). Low contrast dose protocol for aortic CTA using a test bolus technique. *European Journal of Radiology*, 78(2), 262–268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2010.02.015

32. Nakaura, T., Kidoh, M., Awai, K., Yanagi, Y., Utsunomiya, D., & Yamashita, Y. (2013). Individualized contrast medium injection protocol for coronary CT angiography. *American Journal of Roentgenology*, 200(3), 583–590. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.12.9163

33. Schoellnast, H., Tillich, M., Portugaller, H. R., Tillich, M., & Hausegger, K. A. (2004). MDCT angiography of the entire aorta in patients with suspected aortic dissection: Comparison of test bolus and bolus tracking techniques. *American Journal of Roentgenology*, 183(4), 1009–1014. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.183.4.01831009

34. Sommer, W. H., Bamberg, F., Johnson, T. R., Weidenhagen, R., Notohamiprodjo, M., Schwarz, F., Becker, C. R., & Nikolaou, K. (2012). Diagnostic accuracy of aortic dual-energy CT for detection of acute aortic syndrome. *American Journal of Roentgenology*, 198(5), 1002–1009. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.11.7435

35. Watanabe, Y., Nagayama, M., & Amoh, Y. (2012). Dual-energy CT for aortic dissection: A novel approach to reduce contrast material dose. *European Journal of Radiology*, 81(10), 2724–2730. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2011.12.028

36. Yu, L., Leng, S., & McCollough, C. H. (2012). Dual-energy CT-based monochromatic imaging. *American Journal of Roentgenology*, 199(5), S9–S15. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.12.9662

37. Liu, X., Yu, L., Primak, A. N., & McCollough, C. H. (2009). Quantitative image quality evaluation of dual-energy CT virtual monochromatic images: Comparison with conventional polychromatic CT images. *Medical Physics*, 36(12), 5642–5649. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.3259732

38. Leng, S., Yu, L., Fletcher, J. G., & McCollough, C. H. (2015). Maximizing iodine contrast-to-noise ratios in abdominal CT imaging through use of energy domain noise reduction and virtual monoenergetic dual-energy CT. *Radiology*, 276(2), 562–570. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2015141459

39. Flohr, T. G., & Schmidt, B. (2021). Recent advances in CT technology: Clinical applications and future perspectives. *European Journal of Radiology*, 136, 109569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2021.109569

40. McCollough, C. H., Bartel, T. B., & Leng, S. (2021). Photon-counting-detector CT: Potential for improved diagnosis of cardiovascular disease. *Radiology*, 299(3), 507–509. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2021210193

41. Mergen, V., Racine, D., Jungmann, P. M., Eberhard, M., Alkadhi, H., & Euler, A. (2024). Virtual non-contrast images of photon-counting detector CT in patients with aortic dissection: Comparison with energy-integrating detector CT. *European Radiology*, 34(5), 2890–2899. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-023-10345-7

42. Si-Mohammed, A., Boccalini, S., Sigovan, M., Tatard-Leitman, V., Ben-Mansour, A., & Boussel, L. (2023). Photon-counting CT for cardiovascular imaging: Technical principles and first clinical experience. *Diagnostic and Interventional Imaging*, 104(5), 235–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diii.2023.01.005

43. Esquivel, A., Shanbhag, A. D., Starekova, J., Lee, S. J., & Pickhardt, P. J. (2024). Photon-counting detector CT: Key points for abdominal imaging. *Radiographics*, 44(3), e230121. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.230121

44. Rajiah, P. S., Parakh, A., & Sabloff, B. (2024). Photon-counting detector CT for vascular imaging: Initial experience and future directions. *Journal of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography*, 18(2), 112–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcct.2023.11.005

45. Leng, S., McCollough, C. H., & Yu, L. (2024). Technical development and clinical applications of photon-counting detector CT. *Radiology*, 310(1), e230588. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.230588

46. Gutjahr, R., Halaweish, A. F., Yu, Z., Leng, S., & McCollough, C. H. (2023). Spectral photon-counting CT for cardiovascular imaging: Initial experience. *Investigative Radiology*, 58(9), 645–653. https://doi.org/10.1097/RLI.0000000000000987

47. Flohr, T., Stierstorfer, K., Bruder, H., Simon, J., Polacin, A., & Schaller, S. (2003). Image reconstruction and image quality evaluation for a 64-slice CT scanner. *Medical Physics*, 30(5), 832–845. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.1560634

48. Frauenfelder, T., Nguyen, T. D., Schertler, T., Mino, E., Wicky, S., Marincek, B., & Leschka, S. (2009). Hybrid ECG-gated versus non-gated 64-slice CTA of the aorta: Comparison of image quality and radiation dose. *European Journal of Radiology*, 69(3), 476–482. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2007.10.027

49. Johnson, T. R., Krauss, B., Sedlmair, M., Grasruck, M., Thibault, J. B., & Flohr, T. G. (2007). Material differentiation by dual energy CT: Initial experience. *European Radiology*, 17(6), 1510–1517. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-006-0517-6

50. McCollough, C. H., Leng, S., Lifeng, Y., & Fletcher, J. G. (2017). Dual- and multi-energy CT: Principles, technical approaches, and clinical applications. *Radiology*, 276(3), 637–653. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2015142631

51. Alkadhi, H., & Euler, A. (2021). The use of dual-energy CT in patients with acute aortic syndromes. *European Radiology*, 31(10), 7425–7435. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-021-07932-3

52. Apfaltrer, P., Henzler, T., Blanke, P., Krazinski, A. W., Silverman, J. R., & Schoepf, U. J. (2012). Dual-energy CT applications in the aorta. *American Journal of Roentgenology*, 198(5), W447–W456. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.11.7437

53. Liu, X., Yu, L., Primak, A. N., & McCollough, C. H. (2009). Quantitative image quality evaluation of dual-energy CT virtual monochromatic images: Comparison with conventional polychromatic CT images. *Medical Physics*, 36(12), 5642–5649. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.3259732

54. Leng, S., Yu, L., Fletcher, J. G., & McCollough, C. H. (2015). Maximizing iodine contrast-to-noise ratios in abdominal CT imaging through use of energy domain noise reduction and virtual monoenergetic dual-energy CT. *Radiology*, 276(2), 562–570. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2015141459

55. Flohr, T. G., & Schmidt, B. (2021). Recent advances in CT technology: Clinical applications and future perspectives. *European Journal of Radiology*, 136, 109569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2021.109569

56. McCollough, C. H., Bartel, T. B., & Leng, S. (2021). Photon-counting-detector CT: Potential for improved diagnosis of cardiovascular disease. *Radiology*, 299(3), 507–509. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2021210193

57. Mergen, V., Racine, D., Jungmann, P. M., Eberhard, M., Alkadhi, H., & Euler, A. (2024). Virtual non-contrast images of photon-counting detector CT in patients with aortic dissection: Comparison with energy-integrating detector CT. *European Radiology*, 34(5), 2890–2899. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-023-10345-7

58. Si-Mohammed, A., Boccalini, S., Sigovan, M., Tatard-Leitman, V., Ben-Mansour, A., & Boussel, L. (2023). Photon-counting CT for cardiovascular imaging: Technical principles and first clinical experience. *Diagnostic and Interventional Imaging*, 104(5), 235–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diii.2023.01.005

59. Esquivel, A., Shanbhag, A. D., Starekova, J., Lee, S. J., & Pickhardt, P. J. (2024). Photon-counting detector CT: Key points for abdominal imaging. *Radiographics*, 44(3), e230121. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.230121

60. Rajiah, P. S., Parakh, A., & Sabloff, B. (2024). Photon-counting detector CT for vascular imaging: Initial experience and future directions. *Journal of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography*, 18(2), 112–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcct.2023.11.005

61. Leng, S., McCollough, C. H., & Yu, L. (2024). Technical development and clinical applications of photon-counting detector CT. *Radiology*, 310(1), e230588. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.230588

62. Gutjahr, R., Halaweish, A. F., Yu, Z., Leng, S., & McCollough, C. H. (2023). Spectral photon-counting CT for cardiovascular imaging: Initial experience. *Investigative Radiology*, 58(9), 645–653. https://doi.org/10.1097/RLI.0000000000000987

63. Flohr, T., Stierstorfer, K., Bruder, H., Simon, J., Polacin, A., & Schaller, S. (2003). Image reconstruction and image quality evaluation for a 64-slice CT scanner. *Medical Physics*, 30(5), 832–845. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.1560634

64. Frauenfelder, T., Nguyen, T. D., Schertler, T., Mino, E., Wicky, S., Marincek, B., & Leschka, S. (2009). Hybrid ECG-gated versus non-gated 64-slice CTA of the aorta: Comparison of image quality and radiation dose. *European Journal of Radiology*, 69(3), 476–482. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2007.10.027

65. Johnson, T. R., Krauss, B., Sedlmair, M., Grasruck, M., Thibault, J. B., & Flohr, T. G. (2007). Material differentiation by dual energy CT: Initial experience. *European Radiology*, 17(6), 1510–1517. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-006-0517-6

66. McCollough, C. H., Leng, S., Lifeng, Y., & Fletcher, J. G. (2017). Dual- and multi-energy CT: Principles, technical approaches, and clinical applications. *Radiology*, 276(3), 637–653. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2015142631

67. Alkadhi, H., & Euler, A. (2021). The use of dual-energy CT in patients with acute aortic syndromes. *European Radiology*, 31(10), 7425–7435. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-021-07932-3

68. Apfaltrer, P., Henzler, T., Blanke, P., Krazinski, A. W., Silverman, J. R., & Schoepf, U. J. (2012). Dual-energy CT applications in the aorta. *American Journal of Roentgenology*, 198(5), W447–W456. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.11.7437

69. Liu, X., Yu, L., Primak, A. N., & McCollough, C. H. (2009). Quantitative image quality evaluation of dual-energy CT virtual monochromatic images: Comparison with conventional polychromatic CT images. *Medical Physics*, 36(12), 5642–5649. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.3259732

70. Leng, S., Yu, L., Fletcher, J. G., & McCollough, C. H. (2015). Maximizing iodine contrast-to-noise ratios in abdominal CT imaging through use of energy domain noise reduction and virtual monoenergetic dual-energy CT. *Radiology*, 276(2), 562–570. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2015141459

71. Flohr, T. G., & Schmidt, B. (2021). Recent advances in CT technology: Clinical applications and future perspectives. *European Journal of Radiology*, 136, 109569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2021.109569

72. McCollough, C. H., Bartel, T. B., & Leng, S. (2021). Photon-counting-detector CT: Potential for improved diagnosis of cardiovascular disease. *Radiology*, 299(3), 507–509. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2021210193

73. Mergen, V., Racine, D., Jungmann, P. M., Eberhard, M., Alkadhi, H., & Euler, A. (2024). Virtual non-contrast images of photon-counting detector CT in patients with aortic dissection: Comparison with energy-integrating detector CT. *European Radiology*, 34(5), 2890–2899. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-023-10345-7

74. Si-Mohamed, A., Boccalini, S., Sigovan, M., Tatard-Leitman, V., Ben-Mansour, A., & Boussel, L. (2023). Photon-counting CT for cardiovascular imaging: Technical principles and first clinical experience. *Diagnostic and Interventional Imaging*, 104(5), 235–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diii.2023.01.005

75. Esquivel, A., Shanbhag, A. D., Starekova, J., Lee, S. J., & Pickhardt, P. J. (2024). Photon-counting detector CT: Key points for abdominal imaging. *Radiographics*, 44(3), e230121. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.230121

76. Rajiah, P. S., Parakh, A., & Sabloff, B. (2024). Photon-counting detector CT for vascular imaging: Initial experience and future directions. *Journal of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography*, 18(2), 112–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcct.2023.11.005

77. Leng, S., McCollough, C. H., & Yu, L. (2024). Technical development and clinical applications of photon-counting detector CT. *Radiology*, 310(1), e230588. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.230588

78. Gutjahr, R., Halaweish, A. F., Yu, Z., Leng, S., & McCollough, C. H. (2023). Spectral photon-counting CT for cardiovascular imaging: Initial experience. *Investigative Radiology*, 58(9), 645–653. https://doi.org/10.1097/RLI.0000000000000987

79. Flohr, T., Stierstorfer, K., Bruder, H., Simon, J., Polacin, A., & Schaller, S. (2003). Image reconstruction and image quality evaluation for a 64-slice CT scanner. *Medical Physics*, 30(5), 832–845. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.1560634

80. Frauenfelder, T., Nguyen, T. D., Schertler, T., Mino, E., Wicky, S., Marincek, B., & Leschka, S. (2009). Hybrid ECG-gated versus non-gated 64-slice CTA of the aorta: Comparison of image quality and radiation dose. *European Journal of Radiology*, 69(3), 476–482. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2007.10.027

81. Johnson, T. R., Krauss, B., Sedlmair, M., Grasruck, M., Thibault, J. B., & Flohr, T. G. (2007). Material differentiation by dual energy CT: Initial experience. *European Radiology*, 17(6), 1510–1517. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-006-0517-6

82. McCollough, C. H., Leng, S., Lifeng, Y., & Fletcher, J. G. (2017). Dual- and multi-energy CT: Principles, technical approaches, and clinical applications. *Radiology*, 276(3), 637–653. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2015142631

83. Alkadhi, H., & Euler, A. (2021). The use of dual-energy CT in patients with acute aortic syndromes. *European Radiology*, 31(10), 7425–7435. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-021-07932-3

84. Apfaltrer, P., Henzler, T., Blanke, P., Krazinski, A. W., Silverman, J. R., & Schoepf, U. J. (2012). Dual-energy CT applications in the aorta. *American Journal of Roentgenology*, 198(5), W447–W456. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.11.7437

85. Liu, X., Yu, L., Primak, A. N., & McCollough, C. H. (2009). Quantitative image quality evaluation of dual-energy CT virtual monochromatic images: Comparison with conventional polychromatic CT images. *Medical Physics*, 36(12), 5642–5649. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.3259732

86. Leng, S., Yu, L., Fletcher, J. G., & McCollough, C. H. (2015). Maximizing iodine contrast-to-noise ratios in abdominal CT imaging through use of energy domain noise reduction and virtual monoenergetic dual-energy CT. *Radiology*, 276(2), 562–570. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2015141459

87. Flohr, T. G., & Schmidt, B. (2021). Recent advances in CT technology: Clinical applications and future perspectives. *European Journal of Radiology*, 136, 109569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2021.109569

88. McCollough, C. H., Bartel, T. B., & Leng, S. (2021). Photon-counting-detector CT: Potential for improved diagnosis of cardiovascular disease. *Radiology*, 299(3), 507–509. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2021210193

89. Mergen, V., Racine, D., Jungmann, P. M., Eberhard, M., Alkadhi, H., & Euler, A. (2024). Virtual non-contrast images of photon-counting detector CT in patients with aortic dissection: Comparison with energy-integrating detector CT. *European Radiology*, 34(5), 2890–2899. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-023-10345-7

90. Si-Mohamed, A., Boccalini, S., Sigovan, M., Tatard-Leitman, V., Ben-Mansour, A., & Boussel, L. (2023). Photon-counting CT for cardiovascular imaging: Technical principles and first clinical experience. *Diagnostic and Interventional Imaging*, 104(5), 235–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diii.2023.01.005

91. Esquivel, A., Shanbhag, A. D., Starekova, J., Lee, S. J., & Pickhardt, P. J. (2024). Photon-counting detector CT: Key points for abdominal imaging. *Radiographics*, 44(3), e230121. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.230121

92. Rajiah, P. S., Parakh, A., & Sabloff, B. (2024). Photon-counting detector CT for vascular imaging: Initial experience and future directions. *Journal of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography*, 18(2), 112–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcct.2023.11.005

93. Leng, S., McCollough, C. H., & Yu, L. (2024). Technical development and clinical applications of photon-counting detector CT. *Radiology*, 310(1), e230588. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.230588

94. Gutjahr, R., Halaweish, A. F., Yu, Z., Leng, S., & McCollough, C. H. (2023). Spectral photon-counting CT for cardiovascular imaging: Initial experience. *Investigative Radiology*, 58(9), 645–653. https://doi.org/10.1097/RLI.0000000000000987

95. Flohr, T., Stierstorfer, K., Bruder, H., Simon, J., Polacin, A., & Schaller, S. (2003). Image reconstruction and image quality evaluation for a 64-slice CT scanner. *Medical Physics*, 30(5), 832–845. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.1560634

96. Frauenfelder, T., Nguyen, T. D., Schertler, T., Mino, E., Wicky, S., Marincek, B., & Leschka, S. (2009). Hybrid ECG-gated versus non-gated 64-slice CTA of the aorta: Comparison of image quality and radiation dose. *European Journal of Radiology*, 69(3), 476–482. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2007.10.027

97. Johnson, T. R., Krauss, B., Sedlmair, M., Grasruck, M., Thibault, J. B., & Flohr, T. G. (2007). Material differentiation by dual energy CT: Initial experience. *European Radiology*, 17(6), 1510–1517. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-006-0517-6

98. McCollough, C. H., Leng, S., Lifeng, Y., & Fletcher, J. G. (2017). Dual- and multi-energy CT: Principles, technical approaches, and clinical applications. *Radiology*, 276(3), 637–653. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2015142631

99. Alkadhi, H., & Euler, A. (2021). The use of dual-energy CT in patients with acute aortic syndromes. *European Radiology*, 31(10), 7425–7435. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-021-07932-3

100. Apfaltrer, P., Henzler, T., Blanke, P., Krazinski, A. W., Silverman, J. R., & Schoepf, U. J. (2012). Dual-energy CT applications in the aorta. *American Journal of Roentgenology*, 198(5), W447–W456. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.11.7437

101. Liu, X., Yu, L., Primak, A. N., & McCollough, C. H. (2009). Quantitative image quality evaluation of dual-energy CT virtual monochromatic images: Comparison with conventional polychromatic CT images. *Medical Physics*, 36(12), 5642–5649. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.3259732

102. Leng, S., Yu, L., Fletcher, J. G., & McCollough, C. H. (2015). Maximizing iodine contrast-to-noise ratios in abdominal CT imaging through use of energy domain noise reduction and virtual monoenergetic dual-energy CT. *Radiology*, 276(2), 562–570. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2015141459

103. Flohr, T. G., & Schmidt, B. (2021). Recent advances in CT technology: Clinical applications and future perspectives. *European Journal of Radiology*, 136, 109569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2021.109569

104. McCollough, C. H., Bartel, T. B., & Leng, S. (2021). Photon-counting-detector CT: Potential for improved diagnosis of cardiovascular disease. *Radiology*, 299(3), 507–509. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2021210193

105. Mergen, V., Racine, D., Jungmann, P. M., Eberhard, M., Alkadhi, H., & Euler, A. (2024). Virtual non-contrast images of photon-counting detector CT in patients with aortic dissection: Comparison with energy-integrating detector CT. *European Radiology*, 34(5), 2890–2899. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-023-10345-7

A comprehensive review of Thoracic CTA principles, scanning parameters, and contrast delivery techniques. Stay updated with the latest 2026 clinical guidelines for diagnosing aortic dissections and acute aortic syndromes.