BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Acute intracranial hemorrhage represents a severe and time critical pathology that requires precise and quick diagnosis, mainly by performing a CT scan. The purpose of this study was to compare image quality and intracranial hemorrhage conspicuity in brain CT with sinogram-affirmed iterative reconstruction and filtered back-projection reconstruction techniques at standard (340 mAs) and low-dose tube current levels (260 mAs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 94 consecutive patients with intracranial hemorrhage receivedCT scans either with standard or low-dose protocol by random assignment. Group 1 (n=54; mean age, 64 ± 20 years) received CT at 340 mAs, and group 2 (n=40; mean age, 57 ± 23 years) received CT at 260 mAs. Images of both groups were reconstructed with filtered back-projection reconstruction and 5 iterative strengths (S1-S5) and ranked blind by 2 radiologists for image quality and intracranial hemorrhage on a 5-point scale. Image noise, SNR, dose-length product (mGycm), and mean effective dose (mSv) were calculated. RESULTS: In both groups, image quality and intracranial hemorrhage conspicuity were rated subjectively with an excellent/good image quality. A higher strength of sinogram-affirmed iterative reconstruction showed an increase in image quality with a difference to filtered back-projection reconstruction (P < .05). Subjective rating showed the best score of image quality and intracranial hemorrhage conspicuity achieved through S3/S4-5. Objective analysis of image quality showed in an increase of SNR with a higher strength of sinogram-affirmed iterative reconstruction. Patients in group 2 (mean: 744 mGycm/1.71 mSv) were exposed to a significantly lower dose than those in group 1 (mean: 1045 mGycm/2.40 mSv, P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: S3 provides better image quality and visualization of intracranial hemorrhage in brain CT at 260 mAs. Dose reduction by almost one-third is possible without significant loss in diagnostic quality.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Acute intracranial hemorrhage represents a severe and time critical pathology that requires precise and quick diagnosis, mainly by performing a CT scan. The purpose of this study was to compare image quality and intracranial hemorrhage conspicuity in brain CT with sinogram-affirmed iterative reconstruction and filtered back-projection reconstruction techniques at standard (340 mAs) and low-dose tube current levels (260 mAs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 94 consecutive patients with intracranial hemorrhage received CT scans either with standard or low-dose protocol by random assignment. Group 1 (n=54; mean age, 64 ± 20 years) received CT at 340 mAs, and group 2 (n=40; mean age, 57 ± 23 years) received CT at 260 mAs. Images of both groups were reconstructed with filtered back-projection reconstruction and 5 iterative strengths (S1-S5) and ranked blind by 2 radiologists for image quality and intracranial hemorrhage on a 5-point scale. Image noise, SNR, dose-length product (mGycm), and mean effective dose (mSv) were calculated. RESULTS: In both groups, image quality and intracranial hemorrhage conspicuity were rated subjectively with an excellent/good image quality. A higher strength of sinogram-affirmed iterative reconstruction showed an increase in image quality with a difference to filtered back-projection reconstruction (P < .05). Subjective rating showed the best score of image quality and intracranial hemorrhage conspicuity achieved through S3/S4-5. Objective analysis of image quality showed in an increase of SNR with a higher strength of sinogram-affirmed iterative reconstruction. Patients in group 2 (mean: 744 mGycm/1.71 mSv) were exposed to a significantly lower dose than those in group 1 (mean: 1045 mGycm/2.40 mSv, P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: S3 provides better image quality and visualization of intracranial hemorrhage in brain CT at 260 mAs. Dose reduction by almost one-third is possible without significant loss in diagnostic quality.
Authors: J L Wichmann; J Kraft; E-M Nöske; B Bodelle; I Burck; J-E Scholtz; C Frellesen; J Wagenblast; J M Kerl; R W Bauer; T Lehnert; T J Vogl; B Schulz Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2014-08-07 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: R N Southard; D M E Bardo; M H Temkit; M A Thorkelson; R A Augustyn; C A Martinot Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2019-04-11 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Doris Leithner; Julian L Wichmann; Scherwin Mahmoudi; Simon S Martin; Moritz H Albrecht; Thomas J Vogl; Jan-Erik Scholtz Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2018-03-08 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: J-E Scholtz; M Kaup; K Hüsers; M H Albrecht; B Bodelle; S C Metzger; J M Kerl; R W Bauer; T Lehnert; T J Vogl; J L Wichmann Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2015-10-01 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Jan-Erik Scholtz; Julian L Wichmann; Kristina Hüsers; Moritz H Albrecht; Martin Beeres; Ralf W Bauer; Thomas J Vogl; Boris Bodelle Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2015-11-11 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Holger Wenz; Máté E Maros; Mathias Meyer; Alex Förster; Holger Haubenreisser; Stefan Kurth; Stefan O Schoenberg; Thomas Flohr; Christianne Leidecker; Christoph Groden; Johann Scharf; Thomas Henzler Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-08-19 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Holger Wenz; Máté E Maros; Mathias Meyer; Joshua Gawlitza; Alex Förster; Holger Haubenreisser; Stefan Kurth; Stefan O Schoenberg; Christoph Groden; Thomas Henzler Journal: Eur J Radiol Open Date: 2016-07-26