BACKGROUND: The field of nuclear cardiology is limited by image quality and length of procedure. The use of depth-dependent resolution recovery algorithms in conjunction with iterative reconstruction holds promise to improve image quality and reduce acquisition time. This study compared the Astonish algorithm employing depth-dependent resolution recovery and iterative reconstruction to filtered backprojection (FBP) using both full-time (FTA) and half-time (HTA) data. Attenuation correction including scatter correction in conjunction with the Astonish algorithm was also evaluated. METHODS: We studied 187 consecutive patients (132 with cardiac catheterization and 55 with low likelihood for CAD) from three nuclear cardiology laboratories who had previously undergone clinically indicated rest/stress Tc-99m sestamibi or tetrofosmin SPECT. Acquisition followed ASNC guidelines (64 projections, 20-25 seconds). Processing of the full-time data sets included FBP and Astonish (FTA). A total of 32 projection data sets were created by stripping the full-time data sets and processing with Astonish (HTA). Attenuation correction was applied to both full-time and half-time Astonish-processed images (FTA-AC and HTA-AC, respectively). A consensus interpretation of three blinded readers was performed for image quality, interpretative certainty, and diagnostic accuracy, as well as severity and reversibility of perfusion and functional parameters. RESULTS: Full-time and half-time Astonish processing resulted in a significant improvement in image quality in comparison with FBP. Stress and rest perfusion image quality (excellent or good) were 85%/80% (FBP), 98%/95% (FTA), and 95%/92% (HTA), respectively (p < 0.001). Interpretative certainty and diagnostic accuracy were similar with FBP, FTA, and HTA. Left ventricular functional data were not different despite a slight reduction in half-time gated image quality. Application of attenuation correction resulted in similar image quality and improved normalcy (FTA vs. FTA-AC: 76% vs. 95%; HTA vs. HTA-AC: 76% vs. 100%) and specificity (FTA vs. FTA-AC: 62% vs. 78%; HTA vs. HTA-AC: 63% vs. 84%) (p < 0.01 for all comparisons). CONCLUSION: Astonish processing, which incorporates depth-dependent resolution recovery, improves image quality without sacrificing interpretative certainty or diagnostic accuracy. Application of simultaneously acquired attenuation correction, which includes scatter correction, to full-time and half-time images processed with this method, improves specificity and normalcy while maintaining high image quality.
BACKGROUND: The field of nuclear cardiology is limited by image quality and length of procedure. The use of depth-dependent resolution recovery algorithms in conjunction with iterative reconstruction holds promise to improve image quality and reduce acquisition time. This study compared the Astonish algorithm employing depth-dependent resolution recovery and iterative reconstruction to filtered backprojection (FBP) using both full-time (FTA) and half-time (HTA) data. Attenuation correction including scatter correction in conjunction with the Astonish algorithm was also evaluated. METHODS: We studied 187 consecutive patients (132 with cardiac catheterization and 55 with low likelihood for CAD) from three nuclear cardiology laboratories who had previously undergone clinically indicated rest/stress Tc-99m sestamibi or tetrofosmin SPECT. Acquisition followed ASNC guidelines (64 projections, 20-25 seconds). Processing of the full-time data sets included FBP and Astonish (FTA). A total of 32 projection data sets were created by stripping the full-time data sets and processing with Astonish (HTA). Attenuation correction was applied to both full-time and half-time Astonish-processed images (FTA-AC and HTA-AC, respectively). A consensus interpretation of three blinded readers was performed for image quality, interpretative certainty, and diagnostic accuracy, as well as severity and reversibility of perfusion and functional parameters. RESULTS: Full-time and half-time Astonish processing resulted in a significant improvement in image quality in comparison with FBP. Stress and rest perfusion image quality (excellent or good) were 85%/80% (FBP), 98%/95% (FTA), and 95%/92% (HTA), respectively (p < 0.001). Interpretative certainty and diagnostic accuracy were similar with FBP, FTA, and HTA. Left ventricular functional data were not different despite a slight reduction in half-time gated image quality. Application of attenuation correction resulted in similar image quality and improved normalcy (FTA vs. FTA-AC: 76% vs. 95%; HTA vs. HTA-AC: 76% vs. 100%) and specificity (FTA vs. FTA-AC: 62% vs. 78%; HTA vs. HTA-AC: 63% vs. 84%) (p < 0.01 for all comparisons). CONCLUSION: Astonish processing, which incorporates depth-dependent resolution recovery, improves image quality without sacrificing interpretative certainty or diagnostic accuracy. Application of simultaneously acquired attenuation correction, which includes scatter correction, to full-time and half-time images processed with this method, improves specificity and normalcy while maintaining high image quality.
Authors: Manuel D Cerqueira; Neil J Weissman; Vasken Dilsizian; Alice K Jacobs; Sanjiv Kaul; Warren K Laskey; Dudley J Pennell; John A Rumberger; Thomas Ryan; Mario S Verani Journal: Circulation Date: 2002-01-29 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Kenneth J Nichols; Stephen L Bacharach; Steven R Bergmann; S James Cullom; Edward P Ficaro; James R Galt; Gary V Heller; Jonathan Links; Josef Machac Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2006-11 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Salvador Borges-Neto; Robert A Pagnanelli; Linda K Shaw; Emily Honeycutt; Shuli C Shwartz; George L Adams; Ralph Edward Coleman Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2007-07 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: E Gordon DePuey; Ramesh Gadiraju; John Clark; Linda Thompson; Frank Anstett; Shuli C Shwartz Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2008-04-24 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Gary V Heller; Timothy M Bateman; Lynne L Johnson; S James Cullom; James A Case; James R Galt; Ernest V Garcia; Keith Haddock; Kelly L Moutray; Carlos Poston; Eli H Botvinick; Matthews B Fish; William P Follansbee; Sean Hayes; Ami E Iskandrian; John J Mahmarian; William Vandecker Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2004 May-Jun Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Manuel D Cerqueira; Kevin C Allman; Edward P Ficaro; Christopher L Hansen; Kenneth J Nichols; Randall C Thompson; William A Van Decker; Marko Yakovlevitch Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2010-08 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Regina S Druz; Lawrence M Phillips; Michelle Chugkowski; Loukas Boutis; Bruce Rutkin; Stanley Katz Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2010-12-23 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: E Gordon DePuey; Srinivas Bommireddipalli; John Clark; Anna Leykekhman; Linda B Thompson; Marvin Friedman Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2011-02-02 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Ryo Nakazato; Daniel S Berman; Sean W Hayes; Mathews Fish; Richard Padgett; Yuan Xu; Mark Lemley; Rafael Baavour; Nathaniel Roth; Piotr J Slomka Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2013-01-15 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Firas J Al Badarin; John A Spertus; Timothy M Bateman; Krishna K Patel; Eric V Burgett; Kevin F Kennedy; Randall C Thompson Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2019-01-31 Impact factor: 5.952