OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effect of hybrid iterative reconstruction on qualitative and quantitative parameters at 256-slice cardiac CT. METHODS: Prospective cardiac CT images from 20 patients were analysed. Paired image sets were created using 3 reconstructions, i.e. filtered back projection (FBP) and moderate- and high-level iterative reconstructions. Quantitative parameters including CT-attenuation, noise, and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) were determined in both proximal- and distal coronary segments. Image quality was graded on a 4-point scale. RESULTS: Coronary CT attenuation values were similar for FBP, moderate- and high-level iterative reconstruction at 293 ± 74-, 290 ± 75-, and 283 ± 78 Hounsfield units (HU), respectively. CNR was significantly higher with moderate- and high-level iterative reconstructions (10.9 ± 3.5 and 18.4 ± 6.2, respectively) than FBP (8.2 ± 2.5) as was the visual grading of proximal vessels. Visualisation of distal vessels was better with high-level iterative reconstruction than FBP. The mean number of assessable segments among 289 segments was 245, 260, and 267 for FBP, moderate- and high-level iterative reconstruction, respectively; the difference between FBP and high-level iterative reconstruction was significant. Interobserver agreement was significantly higher for moderate- and high-level iterative reconstruction than FBP. CONCLUSIONS: Cardiac CT using hybrid iterative reconstruction yields higher CNR and better image quality than FBP. KEY POINTS: • Cardiac CT helps clinicians to assess patients with coronary artery disease • Hybrid iterative reconstruction provides improved cardiac CT image quality • Hybrid iterative reconstruction improves the number of assessable coronary segments • Hybrid iterative reconstruction improves interobserver agreement on cardiac CT.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effect of hybrid iterative reconstruction on qualitative and quantitative parameters at 256-slice cardiac CT. METHODS: Prospective cardiac CT images from 20 patients were analysed. Paired image sets were created using 3 reconstructions, i.e. filtered back projection (FBP) and moderate- and high-level iterative reconstructions. Quantitative parameters including CT-attenuation, noise, and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) were determined in both proximal- and distal coronary segments. Image quality was graded on a 4-point scale. RESULTS: Coronary CT attenuation values were similar for FBP, moderate- and high-level iterative reconstruction at 293 ± 74-, 290 ± 75-, and 283 ± 78 Hounsfield units (HU), respectively. CNR was significantly higher with moderate- and high-level iterative reconstructions (10.9 ± 3.5 and 18.4 ± 6.2, respectively) than FBP (8.2 ± 2.5) as was the visual grading of proximal vessels. Visualisation of distal vessels was better with high-level iterative reconstruction than FBP. The mean number of assessable segments among 289 segments was 245, 260, and 267 for FBP, moderate- and high-level iterative reconstruction, respectively; the difference between FBP and high-level iterative reconstruction was significant. Interobserver agreement was significantly higher for moderate- and high-level iterative reconstruction than FBP. CONCLUSIONS: Cardiac CT using hybrid iterative reconstruction yields higher CNR and better image quality than FBP. KEY POINTS: • Cardiac CT helps clinicians to assess patients with coronary artery disease • Hybrid iterative reconstruction provides improved cardiac CT image quality • Hybrid iterative reconstruction improves the number of assessable coronary segments • Hybrid iterative reconstruction improves interobserver agreement on cardiac CT.
Authors: Allen J Taylor; Manuel Cerqueira; John McB Hodgson; Daniel Mark; James Min; Patrick O'Gara; Geoffrey D Rubin; Christopher M Kramer; Daniel Berman; Alan Brown; Farooq A Chaudhry; Ricardo C Cury; Milind Y Desai; Andrew J Einstein; Antoinette S Gomes; Robert Harrington; Udo Hoffmann; Rahul Khare; John Lesser; Christopher McGann; Alan Rosenberg; Robert Schwartz; Marc Shelton; Gerald W Smetana; Sidney C Smith Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2010-11-23 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Nico R Mollet; Filippo Cademartiri; Carlos A G van Mieghem; Giuseppe Runza; Eugène P McFadden; Timo Baks; Patrick W Serruys; Gabriel P Krestin; Pim J de Feyter Journal: Circulation Date: 2005-10-03 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Márcio Sommer Bittencourt; Bernhard Schmidt; Martin Seltmann; Gerd Muschiol; Dieter Ropers; Werner Günther Daniel; Stephan Achenbach Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2010-12-01 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Frank J Rybicki; Hansel J Otero; Michael L Steigner; Gabriel Vorobiof; Leelakrishna Nallamshetty; Dimitrios Mitsouras; Hale Ersoy; Richard T Mather; Philip F Judy; Tianxi Cai; Karl Coyner; Kurt Schultz; Amanda G Whitmore; Marcelo F Di Carli Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2008-03-27 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Daniele Marin; Rendon C Nelson; Sebastian T Schindera; Samuel Richard; Richard S Youngblood; Terry T Yoshizumi; Ehsan Samei Journal: Radiology Date: 2010-01 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Lei Zhao; Fabian Plank; Moritz Kummann; Philipp Burghard; Andrea Klauser; Wolfgang Dichtl; Gudrun Feuchtner Journal: Cardiovasc Diagn Ther Date: 2015-04
Authors: Martin J Willemink; Jesse Habets; Pim A de Jong; Arnold M R Schilham; Willem P Th M Mali; Tim Leiner; Ricardo P J Budde Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2012-10-13 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Martin J Willemink; Tim Leiner; Pim A de Jong; Linda M de Heer; Rutger A J Nievelstein; Arnold M R Schilham; Ricardo P J Budde Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2013-01-16 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Martin J Willemink; Pim A de Jong; Tim Leiner; Linda M de Heer; Rutger A J Nievelstein; Ricardo P J Budde; Arnold M R Schilham Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2013-01-12 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Jochen A C van Osch; Mohamed Mouden; Jorn A van Dalen; Jorik R Timmer; Stoffer Reiffers; Siert Knollema; Marcel J W Greuter; Jan Paul Ottervanger; Piet L Jager Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2014-03-28 Impact factor: 2.357