Optimizing radiation dose by using advanced modelled iterative reconstruction in high-pitch coronary CT angiography
- 491 Downloads
To evaluate the potential of advanced modeled iterative reconstruction (ADMIRE) for optimizing radiation dose of high-pitch coronary CT angiography (CCTA).
High-pitch 192-slice dual-source CCTA was performed in 25 patients (group 1) according to standard settings (ref. 100 kVp, ref. 270 mAs/rot). Images were reconstructed with filtered back projection (FBP) and ADMIRE (strength levels 1–5). In another 25 patients (group 2), high-pitch CCTA protocol parameters were adapted according to results from group 1 (ref. 160 mAs/rot), and images were reconstructed with ADMIRE level 4. In ten patients of group 1, vessel sharpness using full width at half maximum (FWHM) analysis was determined. Image quality was assessed by two independent, blinded readers.
Interobserver agreements for attenuation and noise were excellent (r = 0.88/0.85, p < 0.01). In group 1, ADMIRE level 4 images were most often selected (84 %, 21/25) as preferred data set; at this level noise reduction was 40 % compared to FBP. Vessel borders showed increasing sharpness (FWHM) at increasing ADMIRE levels (p < 0.05). Image quality in group 2 was similar to that of group 1 at ADMIRE levels 2–3. Radiation dose in group 2 (0.3 ± 0.1 mSv) was significantly lower than in group 1 (0.5 ± 0.3 mSv; p < 0.05).
In a selected population, ADMIRE can be used for optimizing high-pitch CCTA to an effective dose of 0.3 mSv.
• Advanced modeled IR (ADMIRE) reduces image noise up to 50 % as compared to FBP.
• Coronary artery vessel borders show an increasing sharpness at higher ADMIRE levels.
• High-pitch CCTA with ADMIRE is possible at a radiation dose of 0.3 mSv.
KeywordsComputed tomography Radiation dose Iterative reconstruction Coronary angiography Image quality
The scientific guarantor of this publication is H. Alkadhi. The authors of this manuscript declare relationships with the following companies: M. Sedlmair and B. Schmidt with Siemens Healthcare.
All other authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article. The authors state that this work has not received any funding. One of the authors has significant statistical expertise. No complex statistical methods were necessary for this paper. Institutional review board approval was obtained. Written informed consent was waived by the institutional review board. Methodology: retrospective, case-control study, performed at one institution.
- 3.Vardhanabhuti V, Riordan RD, Mitchell GR, Hyde C, Roobottom CA (2014) Image comparative assessment using iterative reconstructions: clinical comparison of low-dose abdominal/pelvic computed tomography between adaptive statistical, model-based iterative reconstructions and traditional filtered back projection in 65 patients. Invest Radiol 49:209–216PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 11.Taylor AJ, Cerqueira M, Hodgson JM et al (2010) ACCF/SCCT/ACR/AHA/ASE/ASNC/NASCI/SCAI/SCMR 2010 appropriate use criteria for cardiac computed tomography. A report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Appropriate Use Criteria Task Force, the Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, the American College of Radiology, the American Heart Association, the American Society of Echocardiography, the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, the North American Society for Cardiovascular Imaging, the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance. Circulation 122:e525–e555PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 16.Menzel HG, Schibilla H, Teunen D (eds) (2000) European guidelines on quality criteria for computed tomography, EUR 16262 EN. European Commission, LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
- 18.Boone JM, Strauus KJ, Cody DD, McCollough CH, McNitt-Gray MF, Toth TL (2011) Size specific dose estimates (SSDE) in pediatric and adult CT examinations. American Association of Physicists in Medicine, report of AAPM Task Group 204. AAPM, College Park, MDGoogle Scholar