Weiwei Qi1, Jianying Li, Xiangke Du. 1. Department of Radiology, Peking University People's Hospital, Beijing, China. cyanage8@gmail.com
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate a quantitative method for individually adjusting the tube current to obtain images with consistent noise in electrocardiogram (ECG)-gated CT cardiac scans. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The image noise from timing bolus and cardiac CT scans of 80 patients (Group A) who underwent a 64-row multidetector (MD) CT cardiac examination with patient-independent scan parameters were analyzed. A formula was established using the noise correlation between the timing bolus and cardiac scans. This formula was used to predict the required tube current to obtain the desired cardiac CT image noise based on the timing bolus noise measurement. Subsequently, 80 additional cardiac patients (Group B) were scanned with individually adjusted tube currents using an established formula to evaluate its ability to obtain accurate and consistent image noise across the patient population. Image quality was evaluated using score scale of 1 to 5 with a score of 3 or higher being clinically acceptable. RESULTS: Using the formula, we obtained an average CT image noise of 28.55 Hounsfield unit (HU), with a standard deviation of only 1.7 HU, as opposed to a target value of 28 HU. Image quality scores were 4.03 and 4.27 for images in Groups A and B, respectively, and there was no statistical difference between the image quality scores between the two groups. However, the average CT dose index (CTDIvol) was 30% lower for Group B. CONCLUSION: Adjusting the tube current based on timing bolus scans may provide a consistent image quality and dose optimization for cardiac patients of various body mass index values.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate a quantitative method for individually adjusting the tube current to obtain images with consistent noise in electrocardiogram (ECG)-gated CT cardiac scans. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The image noise from timing bolus and cardiac CT scans of 80 patients (Group A) who underwent a 64-row multidetector (MD) CT cardiac examination with patient-independent scan parameters were analyzed. A formula was established using the noise correlation between the timing bolus and cardiac scans. This formula was used to predict the required tube current to obtain the desired cardiac CT image noise based on the timing bolus noise measurement. Subsequently, 80 additional cardiac patients (Group B) were scanned with individually adjusted tube currents using an established formula to evaluate its ability to obtain accurate and consistent image noise across the patient population. Image quality was evaluated using score scale of 1 to 5 with a score of 3 or higher being clinically acceptable. RESULTS: Using the formula, we obtained an average CT image noise of 28.55 Hounsfield unit (HU), with a standard deviation of only 1.7 HU, as opposed to a target value of 28 HU. Image quality scores were 4.03 and 4.27 for images in Groups A and B, respectively, and there was no statistical difference between the image quality scores between the two groups. However, the average CT dose index (CTDIvol) was 30% lower for Group B. CONCLUSION: Adjusting the tube current based on timing bolus scans may provide a consistent image quality and dose optimization for cardiac patients of various body mass index values.
Entities:
Keywords:
Automatic tube current modulation; Computed tomography (CT); Consistent image quality; Coronary artery imaging; Dose reduction and optimization
Authors: Tobias F Jakobs; Christoph R Becker; Bernd Ohnesorge; Thomas Flohr; Christoph Suess; Uwe J Schoepf; Maximilian F Reiser Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2002-02-21 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Marco Das; Andreas Horst Mahnken; Georg Mühlenbruch; Achim Stargardt; Claudia Weiss; Dirk-Alexander Sennst; Thomas G Flohr; Rolf W Günther; Joachim Ernst Wildberger Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2005-05 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Mannudeep K Kalra; Michael M Maher; Thomas L Toth; Bernhard Schmidt; Bryan L Westerman; Hugh T Morgan; Sanjay Saini Journal: Radiology Date: 2004-10-21 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Rami M Abazid; Osama A Smettei; Ahmad Almeman; Sawsan Sayed; Hanaa Alsaqqa; Salma M Abdelmageed; Fahad J Alharbi; Abdullah M Alhabib; Mouaz H Al-Mallah Journal: J Saudi Heart Assoc Date: 2018-11-17
Authors: J D van Dijk; E D Huizing; P L Jager; J P Ottervanger; S Knollema; C H Slump; J A van Dalen Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2015-11-12 Impact factor: 2.357