Literature DB >> 24471388

Iterative image reconstruction techniques for CT coronary artery calcium quantification: comparison with traditional filtered back projection in vitro and in vivo.

Andreas Schindler1, Rozemarijn Vliegenthart, U Joseph Schoepf, Philipp Blanke, Ullrich Ebersberger, Young Jun Cho, Thomas Allmendinger, Sebastian Vogt, Rainer Raupach, Christian Fink, Tobias Saam, Fabian Bamberg, Konstantin Nikolaou, Paul Apfaltrer.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To investigate in vitro and in vivo the use of image-based and raw data-based iterative reconstruction algorithms for quantification of coronary artery calcium by using the Agatston score and subsequent cardiac risk stratification.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: In vitro data were obtained by using a moving anthropomorphic cardiac phantom containing calcium inserts of different concentrations and sizes. With institutional review board approval and HIPAA compliance, coronary calcium imaging data of 110 consecutive patients (mean age ± standard deviation, 58.2 years ± 9.8; 48 men) were reconstructed with filtered back projection (FBP), iterative reconstruction in image space (IRIS), and sinogram-affirmed iterative reconstruction (SAFIRE). Image noise was measured and the Agatston score was obtained for all reconstructions. Assignment to Agatston scores and percentile-based cardiac risk categories was compared. Statistical analysis included the Cohen κ coefficient and Friedman and Wilcoxon testing.
RESULTS: In vitro, mean Agatston scores ± standard deviation for FBP (638.9 ± 9.6), IRIS (622.7 ± 15.2), and SAFIRE (631.4 ± 17.6) were comparable (P = .30). The smallest phantom calcifications were more frequently detected when iterative reconstruction techniques were used. The Agatston scores in the patient cohort were not significantly different among FBP, IRIS, and SAFIRE in paired comparisons (median Agatston score [25th and 75th percentiles]: 76.0 [20.6, 243.9], 76.4 [22, 249.3], and 75.7 [21.5, 49.1], respectively; P = .20 each). Comparison of categorization based on Agatston score percentiles showed excellent agreement for both IRIS and SAFIRE with FBP (κ = 0.975 [0.942-1.00] and κ = 0.963 [0.922-1.00], respectively). The mean effective dose was 1.02 mSv ± 0.51. Mean image noise was significantly (P < .001) higher with FBP than that with iterative reconstructions.
CONCLUSION: In comparison with FBP, iterative reconstruction techniques do not have a profound effect on the reproducible quantification of coronary calcium according to Agatston score and subsequent cardiac risk classification, although risk reclassification may occur in a small subset of subjects. ©RSNA, 2013

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24471388     DOI: 10.1148/radiol.13130233

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  21 in total

1.  Impact of automatically detected motion artifacts on coronary calcium scoring in chest computed tomography.

Authors:  Jurica Šprem; Bob D de Vos; Nikolas Lessmann; Pim A de Jong; Max A Viergever; Ivana Išgum
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2018-12-11

2.  Ultra-low-dose computed tomography for attenuation correction of cadmium-zinc-telluride single photon emission computed tomography myocardial perfusion imaging.

Authors:  Marvin Grossmann; Andreas A Giannopoulos; Fabiola A Bechtiger; Michael Messerli; Moritz Schwyzer; Dominik C Benz; Ken Kudura; Catherine Gebhard; Christoph Gräni; Aju P Pazhenkottil; Philipp A Kaufmann; Ronny R Buechel
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2018-06-19       Impact factor: 5.952

Review 3.  The role of advanced reconstruction algorithms in cardiac CT.

Authors:  Sandra S Halliburton; Yuki Tanabe; Sasan Partovi; Prabhakar Rajiah
Journal:  Cardiovasc Diagn Ther       Date:  2017-10

4.  Influence of iterative reconstruction on coronary calcium scores at multiple heart rates: a multivendor phantom study on state-of-the-art CT systems.

Authors:  N R van der Werf; M J Willemink; T P Willems; M J W Greuter; T Leiner
Journal:  Int J Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2017-12-28       Impact factor: 2.357

5.  Accuracy of coronary artery calcium scoring with tube current reduction by 75%, using an adaptive iterative reconstruction algorithm.

Authors:  Reny Luhur; Joanne D Schuijf; Jürgen Mews; Jörg Blobel; Bernd Hamm; Alexander Lembcke
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2018-01-10       Impact factor: 3.039

6.  Improved coronary calcium detection and quantification with low-dose full field-of-view photon-counting CT: a phantom study.

Authors:  N R van der Werf; P A Rodesch; S Si-Mohamed; R W van Hamersvelt; M J W Greuter; T Leiner; L Boussel; M J Willemink; P Douek
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2022-01-08       Impact factor: 5.315

7.  Image quality, radiation dose, and diagnostic accuracy of prospectively ECG-triggered high-pitch coronary CT angiography at 70 kVp in a clinical setting: comparison with invasive coronary angiography.

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

8.  Impact of Reconstruction Algorithms and Gender-Associated Anatomy on Coronary Calcium Scoring with CT: An Anthropomorphic Phantom Study.

Authors:  Qin Li; Songtao Liu; Kyle J Myers; Marios A Gavrielides; Rongping Zeng; Berkman Sahiner; Nicholas Petrick
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2016-09-22       Impact factor: 3.173

9.  Computed tomography segmental calcium score (SCS) to predict stenosis severity of calcified coronary lesions.

Authors:  Francesca Pugliese; M G M Hunink; Willem B Meijboom; Katarzyna Gruszczynsnka; Marco Rengo; Lu Zou; Ian Baron; Marcel L Dijkshoorn; Gabriel P Krestin; Pim J de Feyter
Journal:  Int J Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2015-09-14       Impact factor: 2.357

10.  Iterative reconstruction can permit the use of lower X-ray tube current in CT coronary artery calcium scoring.

Authors:  Mark A Rodrigues; Michelle C Williams; Thomas Fitzgerald; Martin Connell; Nicholas W Weir; David E Newby; Edwin J R van Beek; Saeed Mirsadraee
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2016-06-08       Impact factor: 3.039

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.