Wei-Hua Yin1, Bin Lu2, Nan Li1, Lei Han1, Zhi-Hui Hou1, Run-Ze Wu3, Yong-Jian Wu4, Hong-Xia Niu4, Shi-Liang Jiang1, Aleksander W Krazinski5, Ullrich Ebersberger5, Felix G Meinel5, U Joseph Schoepf5. 1. Department of Radiology, State Key Laboratory of Cardiovascular Disease, Fuwai Hospital, National Center for Cardiovascular Diseases, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, People's Republic of China. 2. Department of Radiology, State Key Laboratory of Cardiovascular Disease, Fuwai Hospital, National Center for Cardiovascular Diseases, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, People's Republic of China. Electronic address: blu@vip.sina.com. 3. Siemens Healthcare, CT Division, Beijing, People's Republic of China. 4. Department of Cardiology, State Key Laboratory of Cardiovascular Disease, Fuwai Hospital, National Center for Cardiovascular Diseases, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, People's Republic of China. 5. Department of Radiology and Radiological Science and Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study sought to determine whether a 50%-reduced radiation dose protocol using iterative reconstruction (IR) preserves image quality and diagnostic accuracy at coronary computed tomography angiography (CTA) as compared with a routine dose protocol using traditional filtered back projection (FBP). BACKGROUND: IR techniques show promise to decrease radiation requirements at coronary CTA. No study has performed a direct head-to-head, intraindividual comparison of IR algorithms with FBP vis-à-vis diagnostic accuracy and radiation dose at coronary CTA. METHODS: Sixty consecutive subjects (45 men, 53.3 ± 9.4 years of age) prospectively underwent coronary catheter angiography (CCA) and 2 coronary CTA scans. One coronary CTA acquisition used routine radiation dose settings and was reconstructed with FBP. For another scan, the tube current-time product was reduced by 50%, and data were reconstructed with IR. Studies were blindly and randomly interpreted. Image quality, radiation dose, and diagnostic accuracy were compared using CCA as the reference standard. RESULTS: Sensitivity and specificity for diagnosing ≥50% coronary artery stenosis on a per-segment level were 88.5% and 92.1% with FBP and 84.2% and 93.4% with IR, respectively. On a per-patient level, sensitivity and specificity were 100% and 93.1% with FBP and 96.8% and 89.7% with IR, respectively (all p > 0.05). With FBP versus IR, the area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve was 0.903 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.881 to 0.922) and 0.888 (95% CI: 0.864 to 0.909) on a per-segment level, and 0.966 (95% CI: 0.883 to 0.996) and 0.932 (95% CI: 0.836 to 0.981) on a per-patient level, respectively (p = 0.290 and 0.330). Compared with FBP, the iterative series showed no significant (p > 0.05) differences in image quality analyses. Median dose-length product was 52% lower for the IR protocol compared with the FBP protocol (109.00 [interquartile range: 82.00 to 172.50] mGy·cm vs. 52.00 [interquartile range: 39.00 to 84.00] mGy·cm, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with a routine radiation dose FBP protocol, 50% reduced dose acquisition using IR preserves image quality and diagnostic accuracy at coronary CTA.
OBJECTIVES: This study sought to determine whether a 50%-reduced radiation dose protocol using iterative reconstruction (IR) preserves image quality and diagnostic accuracy at coronary computed tomography angiography (CTA) as compared with a routine dose protocol using traditional filtered back projection (FBP). BACKGROUND: IR techniques show promise to decrease radiation requirements at coronary CTA. No study has performed a direct head-to-head, intraindividual comparison of IR algorithms with FBP vis-à-vis diagnostic accuracy and radiation dose at coronary CTA. METHODS: Sixty consecutive subjects (45 men, 53.3 ± 9.4 years of age) prospectively underwent coronary catheter angiography (CCA) and 2 coronary CTA scans. One coronary CTA acquisition used routine radiation dose settings and was reconstructed with FBP. For another scan, the tube current-time product was reduced by 50%, and data were reconstructed with IR. Studies were blindly and randomly interpreted. Image quality, radiation dose, and diagnostic accuracy were compared using CCA as the reference standard. RESULTS: Sensitivity and specificity for diagnosing ≥50% coronary artery stenosis on a per-segment level were 88.5% and 92.1% with FBP and 84.2% and 93.4% with IR, respectively. On a per-patient level, sensitivity and specificity were 100% and 93.1% with FBP and 96.8% and 89.7% with IR, respectively (all p > 0.05). With FBP versus IR, the area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve was 0.903 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.881 to 0.922) and 0.888 (95% CI: 0.864 to 0.909) on a per-segment level, and 0.966 (95% CI: 0.883 to 0.996) and 0.932 (95% CI: 0.836 to 0.981) on a per-patient level, respectively (p = 0.290 and 0.330). Compared with FBP, the iterative series showed no significant (p > 0.05) differences in image quality analyses. Median dose-length product was 52% lower for the IR protocol compared with the FBP protocol (109.00 [interquartile range: 82.00 to 172.50] mGy·cm vs. 52.00 [interquartile range: 39.00 to 84.00] mGy·cm, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with a routine radiation dose FBP protocol, 50% reduced dose acquisition using IR preserves image quality and diagnostic accuracy at coronary CTA.
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
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: Nandini M Meyersohn; Balint Szilveszter; Pedro V Staziaki; Jan-Erik Scholtz; Richard A P Takx; Udo Hoffmann; Brian B Ghoshhajra Journal: J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr Date: 2017-03-22
Authors: Guo Zhong Chen; Long Jiang Zhang; U Joseph Schoepf; Julian L Wichmann; Cole M Milliken; Chang Sheng Zhou; Li Qi; Song Luo; Guang Ming Lu Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2015-01-31 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Felix G Meinel; Christian Canstein; U Joseph Schoepf; Martin Sedlmaier; Bernhard Schmidt; Brett S Harris; Thomas G Flohr; Carlo N De Cecco Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2014-05-10 Impact factor: 5.315