Coronary CT angiography: image quality, diagnostic accuracy, and potential for radiation dose reduction using a novel iterative image reconstruction technique—comparison with traditional filtered back projection
- 2.4k Downloads
To compare image noise, image quality and diagnostic accuracy of coronary CT angiography (cCTA) using a novel iterative reconstruction algorithm versus traditional filtered back projection (FBP) and to estimate the potential for radiation dose savings.
Sixty five consecutive patients (48 men; 59.3 ± 7.7 years) prospectively underwent cCTA and coronary catheter angiography (CCA). Full radiation dose data, using all projections, were reconstructed with FBP. To simulate image acquisition at half the radiation dose, 50% of the projections were discarded from the raw data. The resulting half-dose data were reconstructed with sinogram-affirmed iterative reconstruction (SAFIRE). Full-dose FBP and half-dose iterative reconstructions were compared with regard to image noise and image quality, and their respective accuracy for stenosis detection was compared against CCA.
Compared with full-dose FBP, half-dose iterative reconstructions showed significantly (p = 0.001 – p = 0.025) lower image noise and slightly higher image quality. Iterative reconstruction improved the accuracy of stenosis detection compared with FBP (per-patient: accuracy 96.9% vs. 93.8%, sensitivity 100% vs. 100%, specificity 94.6% vs. 89.2%, NPV 100% vs. 100%, PPV 93.3% vs. 87.5%).
Iterative reconstruction significantly reduces image noise without loss of diagnostic information and holds the potential for substantial radiation dose reduction from cCTA.
KeywordsIterative reconstruction Coronary CT angiography Image noise Radiation dose Image quality
UJS is a consultant for and receives research support from Bayer-Schering, Bracco, General Electric, Medrad, and Siemens. TA, SV, and BS are employees of Siemens Healthcare. The other authors have no conflict of interest to disclose.
This study was supported in part by the Research and Development Program of the Department of Veterans Affairs. The contents do not represent the views of the Department of Veterans Affairs or the United States Government.
- 1.Abdulla J, Abildstrom SZ, Gotzsche O, Christensen E, Kober L, Torp-Pedersen C (2007) 64-multislice detector computed tomography coronary angiography as potential alternative to conventional coronary angiography: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Heart J 28:3042–3050PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 3.Budoff MJ, Dowe D, Jollis JG, Gitter M, Sutherland J, Halamert E, Scherer M, Bellinger R, Martin A, Benton R, Delago A, Min JK (2008) Diagnostic performance of 64-multidetector row coronary computed tomographic angiography for evaluation of coronary artery stenosis in individuals without known coronary artery disease: results from the prospective multicenter ACCURACY (Assessment by Coronary Computed Tomographic Angiography of Individuals Undergoing Invasive Coronary Angiography) trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 52:1724–1732PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 10.Gosling O, Loader R, Venables P, Roobottom C, Rowles N, Bellenger N, Morgan-Hughes G (2010) A comparison of radiation doses between state-of-the-art multislice CT coronary angiography with iterative reconstruction, multislice CT coronary angiography with standard filtered back-projection and invasive diagnostic coronary angiography. Heart 96:922–926PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 17.Flohr TG, McCollough CH, Bruder H, Petersilka M, Gruber K, Suss C, Grasruck M, Stierstorfer K, Krauss B, Raupach R, Primak AN, Kuttner A, Achenbach S, Becker C, Kopp A, Ohnesorge BM (2006) First performance evaluation of a dual-source CT (DSCT) system. Eur Radiol 16:256–268PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 21.Barrett HH, Swindell W (eds) (1996) Radiological imaging—the theory of image formation, detection and processing, 1st edn. Academic Press, Harcourt Brace & Company, Orlando.Google Scholar
- 23.Austen WG, Edwards JE, Frye RL, Gensini GG, Gott VL, Griffith LS, McGoon DC, Murphy ML, Roe BB (1975) A reporting system on patients evaluated for coronary artery disease. Report of the Ad Hoc Committee for Grading of Coronary Artery Disease, Council on Cardiovascular Surgery, American Heart Association. Circulation 51:5–40PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 24.Bongartz G, Goldung SJ, Jurik AG et al (2004) 2004 CT quality criteria. Luxembourg Luxembourg: European Commission, Brussels Available via http://www.msct.eu/CT_Quality_Criteria.htm. Accessed 28 Dec 2010.
- 25.Hamon M, Biondi-Zoccai GG, Malagutti P, Agostoni P, Morello R, Valgimigli M (2006) Diagnostic performance of multislice spiral computed tomography of coronary arteries as compared with conventional invasive coronary angiography: a meta-analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol 48:1896–1910PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 28.Hausleiter J, Meyer T, Hadamitzky M, Huber E, Zankl M, Martinoff S, Kastrati A, Schomig A (2006) Radiation dose estimates from cardiac multislice computed tomography in daily practice: impact of different scanning protocols on effective dose estimates. Circulation 113:1305–1310PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 31.Earls JP, Berman EL, Urban BA, Curry CA, Lane JL, Jennings RS, McCulloch CC, Hsieh J, Londt JH (2008) Prospectively gated transverse coronary CT angiography versus retrospectively gated helical technique: improved image quality and reduced radiation dose. Radiology 246:742–753PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 32.Achenbach S, Marwan M, Ropers D, Schepis T, Pflederer T, Anders K, Kuettner A, Daniel WG, Uder M, Lell MM (2010) Coronary computed tomography angiography with a consistent dose below 1 mSv using prospectively electrocardiogram-triggered high-pitch spiral acquisition. Eur Heart J 31:340–346PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 33.Kalender W (2000) Computed tomography: fundamentals, system technology, image quality, applications, 1st edn. Wiley-VCH, WeinheimGoogle Scholar