OBJECTIVES: Comparison of coronary artery stent assessment with cardiac CT angiography (cCTA) using traditional filtered back projection (FBP) and sinogram affirmed iterative reconstruction (SAFIRE), in both full- and half-radiation dose image data. METHODS: Dual-source cCTA studies of 37 implanted stents were reconstructed at full- and half-radiation dose with FBP and SAFIRE. Half-dose data were based on projections from one DSCT detector. In-stent noise, signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), and stent-lumen attenuation increase ratio (SAIR) were measured and image quality graded. Stent volumes were measured to gauge severity of beam hardening artefacts. RESULTS: Full-dose SAFIRE reconstructions were superior to full-dose FBP vis-à-vis in-stent noise (21.2 ± 6.6 vs. 35.7 ± 17.5; P < 0.05), SNR (22.1 ± 8.6 vs. 14.3 ± 6.7; P < 0.05), SAIR (19.6 ± 17.6 vs. 33.4 ± 20.4%; P < 0.05), and image quality (4.2 ± 0.86 vs. 3.5 ± 1.0; P < 0.05). Stent volumes were lower measured with SAFIRE (119.9 ± 53.7 vs. 129.8 ± 65.0 mm(3); P > 0.05). Comparing half-dose SAFIRE with full-dose FBP, in-stent noise (26.7 ± 13.0 vs. 35.7 ± 17.5; P < 0.05) and SNR (18.2 ± 6.9 vs. 14.3 ± 6.7; P < 0.05) improved significantly. SAIR (31.6 ± 24.3 vs. 33.4 ± 20.4%; P > 0.05), stent volume (129.6 ± 57.3 vs. 129.8 ± 65.0 mm(3); P > 0.05), and image quality (3.5 ± 1.0 vs. 3.7 ± 1.1; P > 0.05) did not differ. Radiation dose decreased from 8.7 ± 5.2 to 4.3 ± 2.6 mSv. CONCLUSIONS: Iterative reconstruction significantly improves imaging of coronary artery stents by CT compared with FBP, even with half-radiation-dose data.
OBJECTIVES: Comparison of coronary artery stent assessment with cardiac CT angiography (cCTA) using traditional filtered back projection (FBP) and sinogram affirmed iterative reconstruction (SAFIRE), in both full- and half-radiation dose image data. METHODS: Dual-source cCTA studies of 37 implanted stents were reconstructed at full- and half-radiation dose with FBP and SAFIRE. Half-dose data were based on projections from one DSCT detector. In-stent noise, signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), and stent-lumen attenuation increase ratio (SAIR) were measured and image quality graded. Stent volumes were measured to gauge severity of beam hardening artefacts. RESULTS: Full-dose SAFIRE reconstructions were superior to full-dose FBP vis-à-vis in-stent noise (21.2 ± 6.6 vs. 35.7 ± 17.5; P < 0.05), SNR (22.1 ± 8.6 vs. 14.3 ± 6.7; P < 0.05), SAIR (19.6 ± 17.6 vs. 33.4 ± 20.4%; P < 0.05), and image quality (4.2 ± 0.86 vs. 3.5 ± 1.0; P < 0.05). Stent volumes were lower measured with SAFIRE (119.9 ± 53.7 vs. 129.8 ± 65.0 mm(3); P > 0.05). Comparing half-dose SAFIRE with full-dose FBP, in-stent noise (26.7 ± 13.0 vs. 35.7 ± 17.5; P < 0.05) and SNR (18.2 ± 6.9 vs. 14.3 ± 6.7; P < 0.05) improved significantly. SAIR (31.6 ± 24.3 vs. 33.4 ± 20.4%; P > 0.05), stent volume (129.6 ± 57.3 vs. 129.8 ± 65.0 mm(3); P > 0.05), and image quality (3.5 ± 1.0 vs. 3.7 ± 1.1; P > 0.05) did not differ. Radiation dose decreased from 8.7 ± 5.2 to 4.3 ± 2.6 mSv. CONCLUSIONS: Iterative reconstruction significantly improves imaging of coronary artery stents by CT compared with FBP, even with half-radiation-dose data.
Authors: Yoshiko Sagara; Amy K Hara; William Pavlicek; Alvin C Silva; Robert G Paden; Qing Wu Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2010-09 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Matthias Renker; Ashok Ramachandra; U Joseph Schoepf; Rainer Raupach; Paul Apfaltrer; Garrett W Rowe; Sebastian Vogt; Thomas G Flohr; J Matthias Kerl; Ralf W Bauer; Christian Fink; Thomas Henzler Journal: J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr Date: 2011-05-25
Authors: Antonio Moscariello; Richard A P Takx; U Joseph Schoepf; Matthias Renker; Peter L Zwerner; Terrence X O'Brien; Thomas Allmendinger; Sebastian Vogt; Bernhard Schmidt; Giancarlo Savino; Christian Fink; Lorenzo Bonomo; Thomas Henzler Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2011-05-25 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Florian Wolf; Sebastian Leschka; Christian Loewe; Peter Homolka; Christina Plank; Ruediger Schernthaner; Dominik Bercaczy; Robert Goetti; Johannes Lammer; Guy Friedrich; Borut Marincek; Hatem Alkadhi; Gudrun Feuchtner Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2010-04-16 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Anna Winklehner; Christoph Karlo; Gilbert Puippe; Bernhard Schmidt; Thomas Flohr; Robert Goetti; Thomas Pfammatter; Thomas Frauenfelder; Hatem Alkadhi Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2011-08-06 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Amy K Hara; Robert G Paden; Alvin C Silva; Jennifer L Kujak; Holly J Lawder; William Pavlicek Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2009-09 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Stefanie Mangold; Paola M Cannaó; U Joseph Schoepf; Julian L Wichmann; Christian Canstein; Stephen R Fuller; Giuseppe Muscogiuri; Akos Varga-Szemes; Konstantin Nikolaou; Carlo N De Cecco Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2015-09-15 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Stefan B Puchner; Maros Ferencik; Mihaly Karolyi; Synho Do; Pal Maurovich-Horvat; Hans-Ulrich Kauczor; Udo Hoffmann; Christopher L Schlett Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2013-08-30 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Lei Zhao; Fabian Plank; Moritz Kummann; Philipp Burghard; Andrea Klauser; Wolfgang Dichtl; Gudrun Feuchtner Journal: Cardiovasc Diagn Ther Date: 2015-04
Authors: Sonja Gordic; Lotus Desbiolles; Martin Sedlmair; Robert Manka; André Plass; Bernhard Schmidt; Daniela B Husarik; Francesco Maisano; Simon Wildermuth; Hatem Alkadhi; Sebastian Leschka Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2015-06-03 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Harrison H Barrett; Kyle J Myers; Christoph Hoeschen; Matthew A Kupinski; Mark P Little Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2015-01-07 Impact factor: 3.609