AIM: To explore whether computer tomography coronary angiography (CTCA) using iterative reconstruction (IR) leads to significant radiation dose reduction without a significant loss in image interpretability compared to conventional filtered back projection (FBP). METHODS: A consecutive series of 200 patients referred to our institution to undergo CTCA constituted the study population. Patients were sequentially assigned to FBP or IR. All studies were acquired with a 256-slice CT scanner. A coronary segment was considered interpretable if image quality was adequate for evaluation of coronary lesions in all segments ≥ 1.5 mm. RESULTS: The mean age was 56.3 ± 9.6 years and 165 (83%) were male, with no significant differences between groups. Most scans were acquired using prospective ECG triggering, without differences between groups (FBP 84% vs IR 82%; P = 0.71). A total of 3198 (94%) coronary segments were deemed of diagnostic quality. The percent assessable coronary segments was similar between groups (FBP 91.7% ± 4.0% vs IR 92.5% ± 2.8%; P = 0.12). Radiation dose was significantly lower in the IR group (2.8 ± 1.4 mSv vs 4.6 ± 3.0 mSv; P < 0.0001). Image noise (37.8 ± 1.4 HU vs 38.2 ± 2.4 HU; P = 0.20) and signal density (461.7 ± 51.9 HU vs 462.2 ± 51.2 HU; P = 0.54) levels did not differ between FBP and IR groups, respectively. The IR group was associated to significant effective dose reductions, irrespective of the acquisition mode. CONCLUSION: Application of IR in CTCA preserves image interpretability despite a significant reduction in radiation dose.
AIM: To explore whether computer tomography coronary angiography (CTCA) using iterative reconstruction (IR) leads to significant radiation dose reduction without a significant loss in image interpretability compared to conventional filtered back projection (FBP). METHODS: A consecutive series of 200 patients referred to our institution to undergo CTCA constituted the study population. Patients were sequentially assigned to FBP or IR. All studies were acquired with a 256-slice CT scanner. A coronary segment was considered interpretable if image quality was adequate for evaluation of coronary lesions in all segments ≥ 1.5 mm. RESULTS: The mean age was 56.3 ± 9.6 years and 165 (83%) were male, with no significant differences between groups. Most scans were acquired using prospective ECG triggering, without differences between groups (FBP 84% vs IR 82%; P = 0.71). A total of 3198 (94%) coronary segments were deemed of diagnostic quality. The percent assessable coronary segments was similar between groups (FBP 91.7% ± 4.0% vs IR 92.5% ± 2.8%; P = 0.12). Radiation dose was significantly lower in the IR group (2.8 ± 1.4 mSv vs 4.6 ± 3.0 mSv; P < 0.0001). Image noise (37.8 ± 1.4 HU vs 38.2 ± 2.4 HU; P = 0.20) and signal density (461.7 ± 51.9 HU vs 462.2 ± 51.2 HU; P = 0.54) levels did not differ between FBP and IR groups, respectively. The IR group was associated to significant effective dose reductions, irrespective of the acquisition mode. CONCLUSION: Application of IR in CTCA preserves image interpretability despite a significant reduction in radiation dose.
Authors: F F Faletra; I D'Angeli; C Klersy; M Averaimo; J Klimusina; E Pasotti; G B Pedrazzini; M Curti; C Carraro; R Diliberto; T Moccetti; A Auricchio Journal: Heart Date: 2010-06 Impact factor: 5.994
Authors: Bernhard Bischoff; Franziska Hein; Tanja Meyer; Markus Krebs; Martin Hadamitzky; Stefan Martinoff; Albert Schömig; Jörg Hausleiter Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2010-06 Impact factor: 3.959
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: Robert C Hendel; Manesh R Patel; Christopher M Kramer; Michael Poon; Robert C Hendel; James C Carr; Nancy A Gerstad; Linda D Gillam; John McB Hodgson; Raymond J Kim; Christopher M Kramer; John R Lesser; Edward T Martin; Joseph V Messer; Rita F Redberg; Geoffrey D Rubin; John S Rumsfeld; Allen J Taylor; Wm Guy Weigold; Pamela K Woodard; Ralph G Brindis; Robert C Hendel; Pamela S Douglas; Eric D Peterson; Michael J Wolk; Joseph M Allen; Manesh R Patel Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2006-10-03 Impact factor: 24.094
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: Matthew P Ostrom; Ambarish Gopal; Naser Ahmadi; Khurram Nasir; Eric Yang; Ioannis Kakadiaris; Ferdinand Flores; Song S Mao; Matthew J Budoff Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2008-10-14 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Gilbert L Raff; Kavitha M Chinnaiyan; David A Share; Tauqir Y Goraya; Ella A Kazerooni; Mauro Moscucci; Ralph E Gentry; Aiden Abidov Journal: JAMA Date: 2009-06-10 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Annemarie M Den Harder; Martin J Willemink; Quirina M B De Ruiter; Pim A De Jong; Arnold M R Schilham; Gabriel P Krestin; Tim Leiner; Ricardo P J Budde Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2015-11-12 Impact factor: 3.039