OBJECTIVES: We evaluated the potential of prospectively ECG-triggered high-pitch spiral acquisition with low tube voltage and current in combination with iterative reconstruction to achieve coronary CT angiography with sufficient image quality at an effective dose below 0.1 mSv. METHODS: Contrast-enhanced coronary dual source CT angiography (2 × 128 × 0.6 mm, 80 kV, 50 mAs) in prospectively ECG-triggered high-pitch spiral acquisition mode was performed in 21 consecutive individuals (body weight <100 kg, heart rate ≤60/min). Images were reconstructed with raw data-based filtered back projection (FBP) and iterative reconstruction (IR). Image quality was assessed on a 4-point scale (1 = no artefacts, 4 = unevaluable). RESULTS: Mean effective dose was 0.06 ± 0.01 mSv. Image noise was significantly reduced in IR (128.9 ± 46.6 vs. 158.2 ± 44.7 HU). The mean image quality score was lower for IR (1.9 ± 1.1 vs. 2.2 ± 1.0, P < 0.0001). Of 292 coronary segments, 55 in FBP and 40 in IR (P = 0.12) were graded "unevaluable". In patients with a body weight ≤75 kg, both in FBP and in IR, the rates of fully evaluable segments were significantly higher in comparison to patients >75 kg. CONCLUSIONS: Coronary CT angiography with an estimated effective dose <0.1 mSv may provide sufficient image quality in selected patients through the combination of high-pitch spiral acquisition and raw data-based iterative reconstruction.
OBJECTIVES: We evaluated the potential of prospectively ECG-triggered high-pitch spiral acquisition with low tube voltage and current in combination with iterative reconstruction to achieve coronary CT angiography with sufficient image quality at an effective dose below 0.1 mSv. METHODS: Contrast-enhanced coronary dual source CT angiography (2 × 128 × 0.6 mm, 80 kV, 50 mAs) in prospectively ECG-triggered high-pitch spiral acquisition mode was performed in 21 consecutive individuals (body weight <100 kg, heart rate ≤60/min). Images were reconstructed with raw data-based filtered back projection (FBP) and iterative reconstruction (IR). Image quality was assessed on a 4-point scale (1 = no artefacts, 4 = unevaluable). RESULTS: Mean effective dose was 0.06 ± 0.01 mSv. Image noise was significantly reduced in IR (128.9 ± 46.6 vs. 158.2 ± 44.7 HU). The mean image quality score was lower for IR (1.9 ± 1.1 vs. 2.2 ± 1.0, P < 0.0001). Of 292 coronary segments, 55 in FBP and 40 in IR (P = 0.12) were graded "unevaluable". In patients with a body weight ≤75 kg, both in FBP and in IR, the rates of fully evaluable segments were significantly higher in comparison to patients >75 kg. CONCLUSIONS: Coronary CT angiography with an estimated effective dose <0.1 mSv may provide sufficient image quality in selected patients through the combination of high-pitch spiral acquisition and raw data-based iterative reconstruction.
Authors: Andrew J Einstein; Carl D Elliston; Andrew E Arai; Marcus Y Chen; Richard Mather; Gregory D N Pearson; Robert L Delapaz; Edward Nickoloff; Ajoy Dutta; David J Brenner Journal: Radiology Date: 2010-03 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Stephan Achenbach; Tobias Goroll; Martin Seltmann; Tobias Pflederer; Katharina Anders; Dieter Ropers; Werner G Daniel; Michael Uder; Michael Lell; Mohamed Marwan Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2011-04
Authors: Paul Stolzmann; Sebastian Leschka; Hans Scheffel; Tobias Krauss; Lotus Desbiolles; André Plass; Michele Genoni; Thomas G Flohr; Simon Wildermuth; Borut Marincek; Hatem Alkadhi Journal: Radiology Date: 2008-10 Impact factor: 11.105
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: 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: Benjamin J W Chow; George A Wells; Li Chen; Yeung Yam; Paul Galiwango; Arun Abraham; Tej Sheth; Carole Dennie; Rob S Beanlands; Terrence D Ruddy Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2010-03-09 Impact factor: 24.094
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: Hye Rin Kim; Seung Min Yoo; Ji Young Rho; Hwa Yeon Lee; Charles S White Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2014-04-01 Impact factor: 2.357
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: Aleksander Kosmala; Bernhard Petritsch; Andreas Max Weng; Thorsten Alexander Bley; Tobias Gassenmaier Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2018-11-30 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Moritz H Albrecht; John W Nance; U Joseph Schoepf; Brian E Jacobs; Richard R Bayer; Sheldon E Litwin; Michael A Reynolds; Katharina Otani; Stefanie Mangold; Akos Varga-Szemes; Domenico De Santis; Marwen Eid; Georg Apfaltrer; Christian Tesche; Markus Goeller; Thomas J Vogl; Carlo N De Cecco Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2017-11-27 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Julian L Wichmann; Xiaohan Hu; Alexander Engler; J Matthias Kerl; Martin Beeres; Claudia Frellesen; Wolfgang Luboldt; Thomas J Vogl; Ralf W Bauer; Thomas Lehnert Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2015-05-16 Impact factor: 3.469
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: 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