OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of adaptive iterative dose reduction (AIDR) on image noise and image quality as compared with standard filtered back projection (FBP) in 320-detector row CT coronary angiography (CTCA). METHODS: 50 patients (14 females, mean age 68 ± 9 years) who underwent CTCA (100 kV or 120 kV, 400-580 mA) within a single heartbeat were enrolled. Studies were reconstructed with FBP and subsequently AIDR. Image noise, vessel contrast and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) in the coronary arteries were evaluated. Overall image quality for coronary arteries was assessed using a five-point scale (1, non-diagnostic; 5, excellent). RESULTS: All the examinations were performed in a single heartbeat. Image noise in the aorta was significantly lower in data sets reconstructed with AIDR than in those reconstructed with FBP (21.4 ± 3.1 HU vs 36.9 ± 4.5 HU; p<0.001). No significant differences were observed between FBP and AIDR for the mean vessel contrast (HU) in the proximal coronary arteries. Consequently, CNRs in the proximal coronary arteries were higher in the AIDR group than in the FBP group (p<0.001). The mean image quality score was improved by AIDR (3.75 ± 0.38 vs 4.24 ± 0.38; p<0.001). CONCLUSION: The use of AIDR reduces image noise and improves image quality in 320-detector row CTCA.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of adaptive iterative dose reduction (AIDR) on image noise and image quality as compared with standard filtered back projection (FBP) in 320-detector row CT coronary angiography (CTCA). METHODS: 50 patients (14 females, mean age 68 ± 9 years) who underwent CTCA (100 kV or 120 kV, 400-580 mA) within a single heartbeat were enrolled. Studies were reconstructed with FBP and subsequently AIDR. Image noise, vessel contrast and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) in the coronary arteries were evaluated. Overall image quality for coronary arteries was assessed using a five-point scale (1, non-diagnostic; 5, excellent). RESULTS: All the examinations were performed in a single heartbeat. Image noise in the aorta was significantly lower in data sets reconstructed with AIDR than in those reconstructed with FBP (21.4 ± 3.1 HU vs 36.9 ± 4.5 HU; p<0.001). No significant differences were observed between FBP and AIDR for the mean vessel contrast (HU) in the proximal coronary arteries. Consequently, CNRs in the proximal coronary arteries were higher in the AIDR group than in the FBP group (p<0.001). The mean image quality score was improved by AIDR (3.75 ± 0.38 vs 4.24 ± 0.38; p<0.001). CONCLUSION: The use of AIDR reduces image noise and improves image quality in 320-detector row CTCA.
Authors: Stephan Achenbach; Tom Giesler; Dieter Ropers; Stefan Ulzheimer; Katharina Anders; Evelyn Wenkel; Karsten Pohle; Marc Kachelriess; Hans Derlien; Willi A Kalender; Werner G Daniel; Werner Bautz; Ulrich Baum Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2003-02 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Mannudeep K Kalra; Michael M Maher; Dushyant V Sahani; Michael A Blake; Peter F Hahn; Gopal B Avinash; Thomas L Toth; Elkan Halpern; Sanjay Saini Journal: Radiology Date: 2003-05-08 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Alexander Lembcke; Till H Wiese; Joerg Schnorr; Susanne Wagner; Juergen Mews; Thomas J Kroencke; Christian N H Enzweiler; Bernd Hamm; Matthias Taupitz Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2004-06 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: W G Austen; J E Edwards; R L Frye; G G Gensini; V L Gott; L S Griffith; D C McGoon; M L Murphy; B B Roe Journal: Circulation Date: 1975-04 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: Gianluca De Rubeis; Adriane E Napp; Peter Schlattmann; Jacob Geleijns; Michael Laule; Henryk Dreger; Klaus Kofoed; Mathias Sørgaard; Thomas Engstrøm; Hans Henrik Tilsted; Alberto Boi; Michele Porcu; Stefano Cossa; José F Rodríguez-Palomares; Filipa Xavier Valente; Albert Roque; Gudrun Feuchtner; Fabian Plank; Cyril Štěchovský; Theodor Adla; Stephen Schroeder; Thomas Zelesny; Matthias Gutberlet; Michael Woinke; Mihály Károlyi; Júlia Karády; Patrick Donnelly; Peter Ball; Jonathan Dodd; Mark Hensey; Massimo Mancone; Andrea Ceccacci; Marina Berzina; Ligita Zvaigzne; Gintare Sakalyte; Algidas Basevičius; Małgorzata Ilnicka-Suckiel; Donata Kuśmierz; Rita Faria; Vasco Gama-Ribeiro; Imre Benedek; Teodora Benedek; Filip Adjić; Milenko Čanković; Colin Berry; Christian Delles; Erica Thwaite; Gershan Davis; Juhani Knuuti; Mikko Pietilä; Cezary Kepka; Mariusz Kruk; Radosav Vidakovic; Aleksandar N Neskovic; Iñigo Lecumberri; Ignacio Diez Gonzales; Balazs Ruzsics; Mike Fisher; Marc Dewey; Marco Francone Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2019-12-16 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Fabian Henry Jürgen Elsholtz; Lars-Arne Schaafs; Christoph Erxleben; Bernd Hamm; Stefan Markus Niehues Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2018-06-19 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: Kurt Schultz; Elizabeth George; Katherine M Mullen; Michael L Steigner; Dimitrios Mitsouras; Ericka M Bueno; Bohdan Pomahac; Frank J Rybicki; Kanako K Kumamaru Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-04-26 Impact factor: 3.240