BACKGROUND: Traditional limitations of cardiac CT are related to image noise, blooming artifacts from calcifications and stents, and radiation exposure. We evaluated whether these limitations can be ameliorated by the use of iterative reconstruction in image space (IRIS) instead of traditional filtered back projection (FBP) image reconstruction techniques. METHODS: We compared image reconstruction with the use of IRIS with traditional FBP for their effect on image quality, noise, volume of heavy coronary artery calcifications, and stents as a measure of "blooming" artifacts, and radiation dose at cardiac CT. The radiation dose comparison was performed as a matched pair analysis, whereas all other comparisons were performed within the same group of patients. RESULTS: The subjective image quality of IRIS reconstructions was rated higher than FBP reconstructions. Image noise was lower with IRIS than with FBP. The volume of stents and heavy coronary artery calcifications measured lower in IRIS reconstructed series compared with FBP. Similar levels of image noise were achieved with 80/100 kVp of tube voltage with IRIS compared with 120 kVp and FBP, resulting in a 62% reduction in effective dose. CONCLUSION: Our preliminary experiences suggest that IRIS incrementally improves the CT evaluation of coronary arteries, especially in challenging scenarios. Substantial radiation reduction seems feasible without associated increases in image noise.
BACKGROUND: Traditional limitations of cardiac CT are related to image noise, blooming artifacts from calcifications and stents, and radiation exposure. We evaluated whether these limitations can be ameliorated by the use of iterative reconstruction in image space (IRIS) instead of traditional filtered back projection (FBP) image reconstruction techniques. METHODS: We compared image reconstruction with the use of IRIS with traditional FBP for their effect on image quality, noise, volume of heavy coronary artery calcifications, and stents as a measure of "blooming" artifacts, and radiation dose at cardiac CT. The radiation dose comparison was performed as a matched pair analysis, whereas all other comparisons were performed within the same group of patients. RESULTS: The subjective image quality of IRIS reconstructions was rated higher than FBP reconstructions. Image noise was lower with IRIS than with FBP. The volume of stents and heavy coronary artery calcifications measured lower in IRIS reconstructed series compared with FBP. Similar levels of image noise were achieved with 80/100 kVp of tube voltage with IRIS compared with 120 kVp and FBP, resulting in a 62% reduction in effective dose. CONCLUSION: Our preliminary experiences suggest that IRIS incrementally improves the CT evaluation of coronary arteries, especially in challenging scenarios. Substantial radiation reduction seems feasible without associated increases in image noise.
Authors: Ullrich Ebersberger; Francesco Tricarico; U Joseph Schoepf; Philipp Blanke; J Reid Spears; Garrett W Rowe; William T Halligan; Thomas Henzler; Fabian Bamberg; Alexander W Leber; Ellen Hoffmann; Paul Apfaltrer Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2012-07-10 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Annemarie M Den Harder; Martin J Willemink; Quirina M B De Ruiter; Pim A De Jong; Arnold M R Schilham; Gabriel P Krestin; Tim Leiner; Ricardo P J Budde Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2015-11-12 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Long Jiang Zhang; Yining Wang; U Joseph Schoepf; Felix G Meinel; Richard R Bayer; Li Qi; Jian Cao; Chang Sheng Zhou; Yan E Zhao; Xie Li; Jian Bin Gong; Zhengyu Jin; Guang Ming Lu Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2015-09-17 Impact factor: 5.315