Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Image quality of CT angiography with model-based iterative reconstruction in young children with congenital heart disease: comparison with filtered back projection and adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
The International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

To retrospectively evaluate the image quality of CT angiography (CTA) reconstructed by model-based iterative reconstruction (MBIR) and to compare this with images obtained by filtered back projection (FBP) and adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction (ASIR) in newborns and infants with congenital heart disease (CHD). Thirty-seven children (age 4.8 ± 3.7 months; weight 4.79 ± 0.47 kg) with suspected CHD underwent CTA on a 64detector MDCT without ECG gating (80 kVp, 40 mA using tube current modulation). Total dose length product was recorded in all patients. Images were reconstructed using FBP, ASIR, and MBIR. Objective image qualities (density, noise) were measured in the great vessels and heart chambers. The contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) was calculated by measuring the density and noise of myocardial walls. Two radiologists evaluated images for subjective noise, diagnostic confidence, and sharpness at the level prior to the first branch of the main pulmonary artery. Images were compared with respect to reconstruction method, and reconstruction times were measured. Images from all patients were diagnostic, and the effective dose was 0.22 mSv. The objective image noise of MBIR was significantly lower than those of FBP and ASIR in the great vessels and heart chambers (P < 0.05); however, with respect to attenuations in the four chambers, ascending aorta, descending aorta, and pulmonary trunk, no statistically significant difference was observed among the three methods (P > 0.05). Mean CNR values were 8.73 for FBP, 14.54 for ASIR, and 22.95 for MBIR. In addition, the subjective image noise of MBIR was significantly lower than those of the others (P < 0.01). Furthermore, while FBP had the highest score for image sharpness, ASIR had the highest score for diagnostic confidence (P < 0.05), and mean reconstruction times were 5.1 ± 2.3 s for FBP and ASIR and 15.1 ± 2.4 min for MBIR. While CTA with MBIR in newborns and infants with CHD can reduce image noise and improve CNR more than other methods, it is more time-consuming than the other methods.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Brenner DJ, Hall EJ (2007) Computed tomography–an increasing source of radiation exposure. N Engl J Med 357(22):2277–2284

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Brody AS, Frush DP, Huda W et al (2007) Radiation risk to children from computed tomography. Pediatrics 120(3):677–682

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Frush DP (2004) Review of radiation issues for computed tomography. Semin Ultrasound CT MR 25(1):17–24

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. National Research Council (2006) Health risks from exposure to low levels of ionizing radiation; BEIR VII Phase 2. The National Academies Press, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  5. Brenner D, Elliston C, Hall E et al (2001) Estimated risks of radiation-induced fatal cancer from pediatric CT. Am J Roentgenol 176(2):289–296

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Pearce MS, Salotti JA, Little MP et al (2012) Radiation exposure from CT scans in childhood and subsequent risk of leukaemia and brain tumours: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet 380(9840):499–505

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Goske MJ, Applegate KE, Boylan J et al (2008) The Image Gently campaign: working together to change practice. Am J Roentgenol 190(2):273–274

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Kalra MK, Maher MM, Toth TL et al (2004) Strategies for CT radiation dose optimization. Radiology 230(3):619–628

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Heyer CM, Mohr PS, Lemburg SP et al (2007) Image quality and radiation exposure at pulmonary CT angiography with 100- or 120-kVp protocol: prospective randomized study. Radiology 245(2):577–583

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Diel J, Perlmutter S, Venkataramanan N et al (2000) Unenhanced helical CT using increased pitch for suspected renal colic: an effective technique for radiation dose reduction? J Comput Assist Tomogr 24(5):795–801

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Kalra MK, Maher MM, Sahani DV et al (2003) Low-dose CT of the abdomen: evaluation of image improvement with use of noise reduction filters pilot study. Radiology 228(1):251–256

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Kalra MK, Woisetschlager M, Dahlstrom N et al (2012) Radiation dose reduction with Sinogram Affirmed Iterative Reconstruction technique for abdominal computed tomography. J Comput Assist Tomogr 36(3):339–346

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Thibault JB, Sauer KD, Bouman CA et al (2007) A three-dimensional statistical approach to improved image quality for multislice helical CT. Med Phys 34(11):4526–4544

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Strub WM, Weiss KL, Sun D (2007) Hybrid reconstruction kernel: optimized chest CT. Am J Roentgenol 189(2):W115–W116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Husarik DB, Marin D, Samei E et al (2012) Radiation dose reduction in abdominal computed tomography during the late hepatic arterial phase using a model-based iterative reconstruction algorithm: how low can we go? Invest Radiol 47(8):468–474

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Mieville FA, Gudinchet F, Brunelle F et al (2013) Iterative reconstruction methods in two different MDCT scanners: physical metrics and 4-alternative forced-choice detectability experiments—a phantom approach. Phys Med 29(1):99–110

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Pickhardt PJ, Lubner MG, Kim DH et al (2012) Abdominal CT with model-based iterative reconstruction (MBIR): initial results of a prospective trial comparing ultralow-dose with standard-dose imaging. Am J Roentgenol 199(6):1266–1274

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Katsura M, Matsuda I, Akahane M et al (2012) Model-based iterative reconstruction technique for radiation dose reduction in chest CT: comparison with the adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction technique. Eur Radiol 22(8):1613–1623

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Yamada Y, Jinzaki M, Tanami Y et al (2012) Model-based iterative reconstruction technique for ultralow-dose computed tomography of the lung: a pilot study. Invest Radiol 47(8):482–489

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Han BK, Lindberg J, Grant K et al (2011) Accuracy and safety of high pitch computed tomography imaging in young children with complex congenital heart disease. Am J Cardiol 107(10):1541–1546

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Leschka S, Oechslin E, Husmann L et al (2007) Pre- and postoperative evaluation of congenital heart disease in children and adults with 64-section CT. Radiographics 27(3):829–846

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Hara AK, Paden RG, Silva AC et al (2009) Iterative reconstruction technique for reducing body radiation dose at CT: feasibility study. Am J Roentgenol 193(3):764–771

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Siegel MJ, Bhalla S, Gutierrez FR et al (2005) MDCT of postoperative anatomy and complications in adults with cyanotic heart disease. Am J Roentgenol 184(1):241–247

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Goo HW (2012) CT radiation dose optimization and estimation: an update for radiologists. Korean J Radiol 13(1):1–11

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Deak PD, Smal Y, Kalender WA (2010) Multisection CT protocols: sex- and age-specific conversion factors used to determine effective dose from dose-length product. Radiology 257(1):158–166

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Smith EA, Dillman JR, Goodsitt MM et al (2014) Model-based iterative reconstruction: effect on patient radiation dose and image quality in pediatric body CT. Radiology 270(2):526–534

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Shuman WP, Green DE, Busey JM et al (2013) Model-based iterative reconstruction versus adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction and filtered back projection in liver 64-MDCT: focal lesion detection, lesion conspicuity, and image noise. Am J Roentgenol 200(5):1071–1076

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Chang W, Lee JM, Lee K et al (2013) Assessment of a model-based, iterative reconstruction algorithm (MBIR) regarding image quality and dose reduction in liver computed tomography. Invest Radiol 48(8):598–606

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Karambatsakidou A, Sahlgren B, Hansson B et al (2009) Effective dose conversion factors in paediatric interventional cardiology. Br J Radiol 82(981):748–755

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Einstein AJ, Moser KW, Thompson RC et al (2007) Radiation dose to patients from cardiac diagnostic imaging. Circulation 116(11):1290–1305

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Cornfeld D, Israel G, Detroy E et al (2011) Impact of Adaptive Statistical Iterative Reconstruction (ASIR) on radiation dose and image quality in aortic dissection studies: a qualitative and quantitative analysis. Am J Roentgenol 196(3):W336–W340

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by a grant from Dongkook Pharmaceutical.

Conflict of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Research Institute for Convergence of Biomedical Science and Technology, Pusan National University Yangsan Hospital, Pusan National University School of Medicine, Busan, Korea

    Ki Seok Choo, Ung Bae Jeon, Kyung Jin Nam, Tae Un Kim, Jeong A Yeom & Jae Yeon Hwang

  2. Department of Biomedical-Engineering, The Graduate School, Pusan National University, Busan, Korea

    Sung Sil Son & Gye Rok Jeon

  3. Department of Family Medicine, Pusan National University Yangsan Hospital, Pusan National University School of Medicine, Busan, Korea

    Dong Wook Jeong

  4. Department of Cardiology, Kim Hae Jungang Hospital, Gimhae, Korea

    Soo Jin Lim

Authors
  1. Sung Sil Son
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ki Seok Choo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ung Bae Jeon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Gye Rok Jeon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Kyung Jin Nam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Tae Un Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Jeong A Yeom
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Jae Yeon Hwang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Dong Wook Jeong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Soo Jin Lim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ki Seok Choo.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Son, S.S., Choo, K.S., Jeon, U.B. et al. Image quality of CT angiography with model-based iterative reconstruction in young children with congenital heart disease: comparison with filtered back projection and adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 31 (Suppl 1), 31–38 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10554-014-0570-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10554-014-0570-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation