| Literature DB >> 22476910 |
Jesse Habets1, Petr Symersky, Tim Leiner, Bas A J M de Mol, Willem P Th M Mali, Ricardo P J Budde.
Abstract
Multislice CT evaluation of prosthetic heart valves (PHV) is limited by PHV-related artifacts. We assessed the influence of different kV settings, a metal artifact reduction filter (MARF) and an iterative reconstruction algorithm (IR) on PHV-induced artifacts in an in vitro model. A Medtronic-Hall tilting disc and St Jude bileafet PHV were imaged using a 64-slice scanner with 100 kV/165 mAs, 120 kV/100 mAs, 140 kV/67 mAs at an equal CTDI(vol). Images were reconstructed with (1) filtered back projection (FBP), (2) IR, (3) MARF and (4) MARF and IR. Hypo- and hyperdense artifacts volumes (mean mm(3) ± SD) were quantified with 2 thresholds (≤-50 and ≥175 Hounsfield Units). Image noise was measured and the presence of secondary artifacts was scored by 2 observers independently. Mean hypodense artifacts for the Medtronic-Hall/St Jude valve (FBP) were 966 ± 23/1,738 ± 21 at 100 kV, 610 ± 13/991 ± 12 at 120 kV, and 420 ± 9/634 ± 9 at 140 kV. Compared to FBP, hypodense artifact reductions for IR were 9/8 %, 10/7 % and 12/6 % respectively, for MARF 92 %/84 %, 89/81 % and 86/77 % respectively; for MARF + IR 94/85 %, 92/82 %, and 90/79 % respectively. Mean hyperdense artifacts for the Medtronic-Hall/St Jude valve were 5,530 ± 48/6,940 ± 70 at 100 kV, 5,120 ± 42/6,250 ± 53 at 120 kV, and 5,011 ± 52/6,000 ± 0 at 140 kV. Reductions for IR were 2/2 %, 2/3 % and 3/4 % respectively, for MARF were 9/30 %, 0/25 %, 5/22 % respectively, MARF + IR 12/32 %, 4/27 % and 7/25 % respectively. Secondary artifacts were found in all MARF images. Image noise was reduced in the IR images. In vitro PHV-related artifacts can be reduced by increasing kV despite maintaining identical CTDI(vol). Although MARF is more effective than IR, it induces secondary artifacts.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2012 PMID: 22476910 PMCID: PMC3485534 DOI: 10.1007/s10554-012-0041-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging ISSN: 1569-5794 Impact factor: 2.357
Fig. 1Polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) perfusion chamber (a). Pulsatile in vitro model in 64 slice CT scanner (Brilliance 64, Philips Medical Systems, Cleveland, Ohio, USA) (b). (Reprinted with permission [9], Copyright ICR Publishers)
The influence of tube voltage and reconstruction algorithm on hypodense PHV artifacts
| PHV type | Scan protocol | FBPa | IRa | FBP + MARFa | IR + MARFa |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Medtronic Hall tilting discb | 100 kV, 165 mAs | 966 ± 23 | 875 ± 20 (−9 %) | 81 ± 3 (−92 %) | 56 ± 3 (−94 %) |
| 120 kV, 100 mAs | 610 ± 13 | 548 ± 13 (−10 %) | 69 ± 3 (−89 %) | 48 ± 3 (−92 %) | |
| 140 kV, 65 mAs | 420 ± 9 | 371 ± 10 (−12 %) | 57 ± 5 (−86 %) | 40 ± 2 (−90 %) | |
| St Jude Bileafletb | 100 kV, 165 mAs | 1,738 ± 21 | 1,606 ± 20 (−8 %) | 278 ± 3 (−84 %) | 257 ± 3 (−85 %) |
| 120 kV, 100 mAs | 991 ± 12 | 922 ± 8 (−7 %) | 191 ± 4 (−81 %) | 175 ± 2 (−82 %) | |
| 140 kV, 65 mAs | 634 ± 9 | 595 ± 6 (−6 %) | 146 ± 3 (−77 %) | 133 ± 2 (−79 %) |
Between brackets percentage PHV artifact reduction compared to standard FBP
aDifferent reconstruction algorithms: Filtered Back Projection (FBP), Metal Artifact Reduction Filter (MARF), Iterative Reconstruction (IR)
bManufacturer details: Medtronic Hall tilting disc (Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN, USA) and St Jude bileaflet (St Jude Medical, St Paul, MN, USA)
The influence of tube voltage and reconstruction algorithm on hyperdense PHV artifacts
| PHV type | Scan protocol | FBPa | IRa | FBP + MFa | IR + MFa |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Medtronic Hall tilting discb | 100 kV, 165 mAs | 5,530 ± 48 | 5,420 ± 42 (−2 %) | 5,009 ± 32 (−9 %) | 4,850 ± 26 (−12 %) |
| 120 kV, 100 mAs | 5,120 ± 42 | 4,997 ± 7 (−2 %) | 5,110 ± 32 (−0 %) | 4,901 ± 18 (−4 %) | |
| 140 kV, 65 mAs | 5,011 ± 52 | 4,849 ± 26 (−3 %) | 4,767 ± 135 (−5 %) | 4,641 ± 89 (−7 %) | |
| St Jude Bileafletb | 100 kV, 165 mAs | 6,940 ± 70 | 6,770 ± 48 (−2 %) | 4,829 ± 30 (−30 %) | 4,733 ± 25 (−32 %) |
| 120 kV, 100 mAs | 6,250 ± 53 | 6,070 ± 48 (−3 %) | 4,663 ± 19 (−25 %) | 4,541 ± 19 (−27 %) | |
| 140 kV, 65 mAs | 6,000 ± 0 | 5,740 ± 52 (−4 %) | 4,708 ± 14 (−22 %) | 4,523 ± 14 (−25 %) |
Between brackets percentage PHV artifact reduction compared to standard FBP
aDifferent reconstruction algorithms: Filtered Back Projection (FBP), Metal Artifact Reduction Filter (MARF), Iterative Reconstruction (IR)
bManufacturer details: Medtronic Hall tilting disc (Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN, USA) and St Jude bileaflet (St Jude Medical, St Paul, MN, USA)
Fig. 2CT image reconstructions of Medtronic Hall tilting disc (Medtronic Inc., Minneapolis, MN, USA) reconstructed with filtered back projection and scanned with 100 kV (a), 120 kV (b) and 140 kV (c). Note the moderate reduction of hypodense artifacts and a slight reduction of hyperdense artifacts
Mean image noise (±SD) in different reconstruction algorithms and scan protocols
| PHV type | Scan protocol | Image noise (FBPa) | Image noise (IRa) | Image noise (FBP + MARFa) | Image noise (IR + MARFa) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Medtronic Hall tilting discb | 100 kV, 165 mAs | 13.0 ± 1.3 | 10.2 ± 1.2 | 12.7 ± 1.3 | 10.5 ± 1.0 |
| 120 kV, 100 mAs | 12.1 ± 1.3 | 9.4 ± 1.2 | 12.4 ± 1.1 | 9.4 ± 1.2 | |
| 140 kV, 65 mAs | 12.8 ± 1.4 | 9.7 ± 0.7 | 12.7 ± 1.1 | 9.7 ± 0.9 | |
| St Jude Bileafletb | 100 kV, 165 mAs | 10.8 ± 0.5 | 8.6 ± 0.5 | 10.8 ± 0.6 | 8.4 ± 0.6 |
| 120 kV, 100 mAs | 10.7 ± 1.0 | 8.7 ± 1.2 | 10.8 ± 1.2 | 8.3 ± 1.0 | |
| 140 kV, 65 mAs | 11.1 ± 0.9 | 8.6 ± 0.9 | 11.0 ± 1.1 | 8.7 ± 1.1 |
aDifferent reconstruction algorithms: Filtered Back Projection (FBP), Metal Artifact Reduction Filter (MARF), Iterative Reconstruction (IR)
bManufacturer details: Medtronic Hall tilting disc (Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN, USA) and St Jude bileaflet (St Jude Medical, St Paul, MN, USA)
Fig. 3CT image reconstructions of Medtronic Hall tilting disc (Medtronic Inc., Minneapolis, MN, USA) with filtered back projection (a), iterative reconstruction (b), metal artifact reduction filter (c) and metal artifact reduction filter and iterative reconstruction (d). Note the secondary artifacts present in the MARF reconstructions (arrows) (c, d). These artifacts are not present in the other reconstructions FBP (a) and IR (b)
Fig. 4CT image reconstructions of Medtronic Hall tilting disc (Medtronic Inc., Minneapolis, MN, USA) with filtered back projection (a), iterative reconstruction (b), metal artifact reduction filter (c) and metal artifact reduction filter and iterative reconstruction (d). Note the secondary artifacts present in the MARF reconstructions (arrows) (c, d)