PURPOSE: To determine the influence of dose reduction on coronary calcium scoring using hybrid and model-based iterative reconstruction (IR) techniques. METHODS: Fifteen ex vivo hearts were scanned in a phantom representing an average adult person at routine dose and three levels of dose reduction; 27, 55 and 82% reduced-dose, respectively. All images were reconstructed using filtered back-projection (FBP), hybrid IR (iDose4, levels 1, 4 and 7) as well as model-based IR iterative model reconstruction (IMR, levels 1, 2 and 3). Agatston, mass and volume scores found with iDose4 and IMR were compared to FBP reconstruction (routine dose) as well as objective image quality. RESULTS: With FBP calcium scores remained unchanged at 82% reduced dose. With IR Agatston scores differed significantly at routine dose, using IMR level 3 and iDose4 level 7, and at 82% reduced dose, using IMR levels 1-3 and iDose4 level 7. The maximum median difference was 5.3%. Mass remained unchanged at reduced dose levels while volume was significantly lower at 82% reduced dose with IMR (maximum median difference 5.0%). Objective image quality improved with IR, at 82% reduced dose the CNR of iDose4 level 7 was similar to the reference dose CNR, and IMR levels 1-3 resulted in an even higher CNR. CONCLUSION: Calcium scores were not affected by radiation-dose reduction with FBP and low levels of hybrid IR. Objective image quality increased significantly using hybrid and model-based IR. Therefore low level hybrid IR has the potential to reduce radiation-dose of coronary calcium scoring with up to 82%.
PURPOSE: To determine the influence of dose reduction on coronary calcium scoring using hybrid and model-based iterative reconstruction (IR) techniques. METHODS: Fifteen ex vivo hearts were scanned in a phantom representing an average adult person at routine dose and three levels of dose reduction; 27, 55 and 82% reduced-dose, respectively. All images were reconstructed using filtered back-projection (FBP), hybrid IR (iDose4, levels 1, 4 and 7) as well as model-based IR iterative model reconstruction (IMR, levels 1, 2 and 3). Agatston, mass and volume scores found with iDose4 and IMR were compared to FBP reconstruction (routine dose) as well as objective image quality. RESULTS: With FBP calcium scores remained unchanged at 82% reduced dose. With IR Agatston scores differed significantly at routine dose, using IMR level 3 and iDose4 level 7, and at 82% reduced dose, using IMR levels 1-3 and iDose4 level 7. The maximum median difference was 5.3%. Mass remained unchanged at reduced dose levels while volume was significantly lower at 82% reduced dose with IMR (maximum median difference 5.0%). Objective image quality improved with IR, at 82% reduced dose the CNR of iDose4 level 7 was similar to the reference dose CNR, and IMR levels 1-3 resulted in an even higher CNR. CONCLUSION:Calcium scores were not affected by radiation-dose reduction with FBP and low levels of hybrid IR. Objective image quality increased significantly using hybrid and model-based IR. Therefore low level hybrid IR has the potential to reduce radiation-dose of coronary calcium scoring with up to 82%.
Authors: B Ohnesorge; T Flohr; R Fischbach; A F Kopp; A Knez; S Schröder; U J Schöpf; A Crispin; E Klotz; M F Reiser; C R Becker Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2002-04-19 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Paul Stolzmann; Christopher L Schlett; Pal Maurovich-Horvat; Akiko Maehara; Shixin Ma; Hans Scheffel; Leif-Christopher Engel; Mihály Károlyi; Gary S Mintz; Udo Hoffmann Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2012-05-24 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Tobias A Fuchs; Michael Fiechter; Cathérine Gebhard; Julia Stehli; Jelena R Ghadri; Egle Kazakauskaite; Bernhard A Herzog; Lars Husmann; Oliver Gaemperli; Philipp A Kaufmann Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2012-10-02 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Stefan Möhlenkamp; Nils Lehmann; Philip Greenland; Susanne Moebus; Hagen Kälsch; Axel Schmermund; Nico Dragano; Andreas Stang; Johannes Siegrist; Klaus Mann; Karl-Heinz Jöckel; Raimund Erbel Journal: Atherosclerosis Date: 2010-12-21 Impact factor: 5.162
Authors: Se Y Choi; Seung H Ahn; Jae D Choi; Jung H Kim; Byoung-Il Lee; Jeong-In Kim; Sung B Park Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2015-11-18 Impact factor: 3.039
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
Authors: Tobias Gassenmaier; Thomas Allmendinger; Andreas S Kunz; Maike Veyhl-Wichmann; Süleyman Ergün; Thorsten A Bley; Bernhard Petritsch Journal: Acta Radiol Open Date: 2017-05-29