OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was to assess the impact of Adaptive Statistical Iterative Reconstruction (ASIR) on radiation dose and study quality for coronary CT angiography (CTA). SUBJECTS AND METHODS: We prospectively evaluated 574 consecutive patients undergoing coronary CTA at three centers. Comparisons were performed between consecutive groups initially using filtered back projection (FBP) (n = 331) and subsequently ASIR (n = 243) with regard to patient and scan characteristics, radiation dose, and diagnostic study quality. RESULTS: There was no difference between groups in the use of prospective gating, tube voltage, or scan length. The examinations performed using ASIR had a lower median tube current than those obtained using FBP (median [interquartile range], 450 mA [350-600] vs 650 mA [531-750], respectively; p < 0.001). There was a 44% reduction in the median radiation dose between the FBP and ASIR cohorts (4.1 mSv [2.3-5.2] vs 2.3 mSv [1.9-3.5]; p < 0.001). After adjustment for scan settings, ASIR was associated with a 27% reduction in radiation dose compared with FBP (95% CI, 21-32%; p < 0.001). Despite the reduced current, ASIR was not associated with a difference in adjusted signal, noise, or signal-to-noise ratio (p = not significant). No differences existed between FBP and ASIR for interpretability per coronary artery (98.5% vs 99.3%, respectively; p = 0.12) or per patient (96.1% vs 97.1%, p = 0.65). CONCLUSION. ASIR enabled reduced tube current and lower radiation dose in comparison with FBP, with preserved signal, noise, and study interpretability, in a large multicenter cohort. ASIR represents a new technique to reduce radiation dose in coronary CTA studies.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was to assess the impact of Adaptive Statistical Iterative Reconstruction (ASIR) on radiation dose and study quality for coronary CT angiography (CTA). SUBJECTS AND METHODS: We prospectively evaluated 574 consecutive patients undergoing coronary CTA at three centers. Comparisons were performed between consecutive groups initially using filtered back projection (FBP) (n = 331) and subsequently ASIR (n = 243) with regard to patient and scan characteristics, radiation dose, and diagnostic study quality. RESULTS: There was no difference between groups in the use of prospective gating, tube voltage, or scan length. The examinations performed using ASIR had a lower median tube current than those obtained using FBP (median [interquartile range], 450 mA [350-600] vs 650 mA [531-750], respectively; p < 0.001). There was a 44% reduction in the median radiation dose between the FBP and ASIR cohorts (4.1 mSv [2.3-5.2] vs 2.3 mSv [1.9-3.5]; p < 0.001). After adjustment for scan settings, ASIR was associated with a 27% reduction in radiation dose compared with FBP (95% CI, 21-32%; p < 0.001). Despite the reduced current, ASIR was not associated with a difference in adjusted signal, noise, or signal-to-noise ratio (p = not significant). No differences existed between FBP and ASIR for interpretability per coronary artery (98.5% vs 99.3%, respectively; p = 0.12) or per patient (96.1% vs 97.1%, p = 0.65). CONCLUSION. ASIR enabled reduced tube current and lower radiation dose in comparison with FBP, with preserved signal, noise, and study interpretability, in a large multicenter cohort. ASIR represents a new technique to reduce radiation dose in coronary CTA studies.
Authors: Paul Stolzmann; Christopher L Schlett; Pal Maurovich-Horvat; Akiko Maehara; Shixin Ma; Hans Scheffel; Leif-Christopher Engel; Mihály Károlyi; Gary S Mintz; Udo Hoffmann Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2012-05-24 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: B M Gramer; D Muenzel; V Leber; A-K von Thaden; H Feussner; A Schneider; M Vembar; N Soni; E J Rummeny; A M Huber Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2012-07-03 Impact factor: 5.315