PURPOSE: This study was performed to confirm, by propensity score matching, whether the use of adaptive-iterative dose reduction (AIDR 3D) with a built-in automatic exposure control system provides clinical and dosimetric advantages with respect to the traditional filtered back-projection (FBP) algorithm without automatic exposure modulation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 200 consecutive patients undergoing coronary computed tomography (CT) angiography on a 640-slice CT scanner were studied. A protocol with exposure parameters based on patient body mass index (BMI) and with images reconstructed using FBP (group A) was compared with a protocol with images acquired using tube current decided by an automatic exposure control system and reconstructed using AIDR (group B). Mean effective dose and image quality with both objective and subjective measurements were assessed. RESULTS: Mean effective dose was 23.6 % lower in group B than in group A (2.56 versus 3.34 mSv; p < 0.0001). Noise was significantly lower in group B with consequent higher signal-to-noise (SNR) and contrast-to-noise (CNR) (p < 0.0001) compared with group A. Subjective quality parameters were also significantly higher in group B. CONCLUSIONS: Comparative analysis by propensity score matching confirms that AIDR 3D with automatic exposure control is able to reduce significantly the mean radiation dose and improve the image quality compared with traditional FBP without exposure modulation.
PURPOSE: This study was performed to confirm, by propensity score matching, whether the use of adaptive-iterative dose reduction (AIDR 3D) with a built-in automatic exposure control system provides clinical and dosimetric advantages with respect to the traditional filtered back-projection (FBP) algorithm without automatic exposure modulation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 200 consecutive patients undergoing coronary computed tomography (CT) angiography on a 640-slice CT scanner were studied. A protocol with exposure parameters based on patient body mass index (BMI) and with images reconstructed using FBP (group A) was compared with a protocol with images acquired using tube current decided by an automatic exposure control system and reconstructed using AIDR (group B). Mean effective dose and image quality with both objective and subjective measurements were assessed. RESULTS: Mean effective dose was 23.6 % lower in group B than in group A (2.56 versus 3.34 mSv; p < 0.0001). Noise was significantly lower in group B with consequent higher signal-to-noise (SNR) and contrast-to-noise (CNR) (p < 0.0001) compared with group A. Subjective quality parameters were also significantly higher in group B. CONCLUSIONS: Comparative analysis by propensity score matching confirms that AIDR 3D with automatic exposure control is able to reduce significantly the mean radiation dose and improve the image quality compared with traditional FBP without exposure modulation.
Authors: W G Austen; J E Edwards; R L Frye; G G Gensini; V L Gott; L S Griffith; D C McGoon; M L Murphy; B B Roe Journal: Circulation Date: 1975-04 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Chang Hyun Lee; Jin Mo Goo; Hyun Ju Ye; Sung-Joon Ye; Chang Min Park; Eun Ju Chun; Jung-Gi Im Journal: Radiographics Date: 2008 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 5.333
Authors: Donald Lloyd-Jones; Robert J Adams; Todd M Brown; Mercedes Carnethon; Shifan Dai; Giovanni De Simone; T Bruce Ferguson; Earl Ford; Karen Furie; Cathleen Gillespie; Alan Go; Kurt Greenlund; Nancy Haase; Susan Hailpern; P Michael Ho; Virginia Howard; Brett Kissela; Steven Kittner; Daniel Lackland; Lynda Lisabeth; Ariane Marelli; Mary M McDermott; James Meigs; Dariush Mozaffarian; Michael Mussolino; Graham Nichol; Véronique L Roger; Wayne Rosamond; Ralph Sacco; Paul Sorlie; Randall Stafford; Thomas Thom; Sylvia Wasserthiel-Smoller; Nathan D Wong; Judith Wylie-Rosett Journal: Circulation Date: 2010-02-23 Impact factor: 29.690
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: Michèle Hamon; Giuseppe G L Biondi-Zoccai; Patrizia Malagutti; Pierfrancesco Agostoni; Rémy Morello; Marco Valgimigli; Martial Hamon Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2006-09-26 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Eun Ju Chun; Whal Lee; Young Hoon Choi; Bon-Kwon Koo; Sang Il Choi; Hwan Jun Jae; Hyo-Cheol Kim; Young Ho So; Jin Wook Chung; Jae Hyung Park Journal: J Comput Assist Tomogr Date: 2008 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 1.826
Authors: Ernesto Di Cesare; Antonio Gennarelli; Alessandra Di Sibio; Valentina Felli; Marco Perri; Alessandra Splendiani; Giovanni Luca Gravina; Antonio Barile; Carlo Masciocchi Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2016-05-12 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: Federico Bruno; Francesco Arrigoni; Nicola Maggialetti; Raffaele Natella; Alfonso Reginelli; Ernesto Di Cesare; Luca Brunese; Andrea Giovagnoni; Carlo Masciocchi; Alessandra Splendiani; Antonio Barile Journal: Gland Surg Date: 2019-04
Authors: Francesco Secchi; Marco Alì; Elena Faggiano; Paola Maria Cannaò; Marco Fedele; Silvia Tresoldi; Giovanni Di Leo; Ferdinando Auricchio; Francesco Sardanelli Journal: Eur Heart J Suppl Date: 2016-04-29 Impact factor: 1.803
Authors: Filippo Cademartiri; Ernesto Di Cesare; Marco Francone; Giovanni Ballerini; Guido Ligabue; Erica Maffei; Andrea Romagnoli; Giovanni Maria Argiolas; Vincenzo Russo; Vitaliano Buffa; Riccardo Marano; Maria Guzzetta; Manuel Belgrano; Iacopo Carbone; Luca Macarini; Claudia Borghi; Paolo Di Renzi; Vicenzo Barile; Lucia Patriarca Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2015-02-21 Impact factor: 3.469