OBJECTIVE: To determine whether CT pulmonary angiography (CTPA) using low mA setting reconstructed with model-based iterative reconstruction (MBIR) is equivalent to routine CTPA reconstructed with filtered back projection (FBP). METHODS: This prospective study was approved by the institutional review board and patients provided written informed consent. Eighty-two patients were examined with a low mA MBIR-CTPA (100 kV, 20 mA) and 82 patients with a standard FBP-CTPA (100 kV, 250 mA). Region of interests were drawn in nine pulmonary vessels; signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) were calculated. A five-point scale was used to subjectively evaluate the image quality of FBP-CTPA and low mA MBIR-CTPA. RESULTS: Compared to routine FBP-CTPA, low mA MBIR-CTPA showed no differences in the attenuation measured in nine pulmonary vessels, higher SNR (56 ± 19 vs 43 ± 20, p < 0.0001) and higher CNR (50 ± 17 vs 38 ± 18, p < 0.0001) despite a dose reduction of 93 % (p < 0.0001). The subjective image quality of low mA MBIR-CTPA was quoted as diagnostic in 98 % of the cases for patient with body mass index less than 30 kg/m(2). CONCLUSION: Low mA MBIR-CTPA is equivalent to routine FBP-CTPA and allows a significant dose reduction while improving SNR and CNR in the pulmonary vessels, as compared with routine FBP-CTPA. KEY POINTS: • Low mA MBIR-CTPA is equivalent to routine FBP-CTPA. • MBIR-CTPA may be achieved with drastic (93 %) dose reduction. • Low mA MBIR-CTPA should be studied in the setting of suspected PE.
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether CT pulmonary angiography (CTPA) using low mA setting reconstructed with model-based iterative reconstruction (MBIR) is equivalent to routine CTPA reconstructed with filtered back projection (FBP). METHODS: This prospective study was approved by the institutional review board and patients provided written informed consent. Eighty-two patients were examined with a low mA MBIR-CTPA (100 kV, 20 mA) and 82 patients with a standard FBP-CTPA (100 kV, 250 mA). Region of interests were drawn in nine pulmonary vessels; signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) were calculated. A five-point scale was used to subjectively evaluate the image quality of FBP-CTPA and low mA MBIR-CTPA. RESULTS: Compared to routine FBP-CTPA, low mA MBIR-CTPA showed no differences in the attenuation measured in nine pulmonary vessels, higher SNR (56 ± 19 vs 43 ± 20, p < 0.0001) and higher CNR (50 ± 17 vs 38 ± 18, p < 0.0001) despite a dose reduction of 93 % (p < 0.0001). The subjective image quality of low mA MBIR-CTPA was quoted as diagnostic in 98 % of the cases for patient with body mass index less than 30 kg/m(2). CONCLUSION: Low mA MBIR-CTPA is equivalent to routine FBP-CTPA and allows a significant dose reduction while improving SNR and CNR in the pulmonary vessels, as compared with routine FBP-CTPA. KEY POINTS: • Low mA MBIR-CTPA is equivalent to routine FBP-CTPA. • MBIR-CTPA may be achieved with drastic (93 %) dose reduction. • Low mA MBIR-CTPA should be studied in the setting of suspected PE.
Authors: Emmanuel Coche; Franck Verschuren; André Keyeux; Pierre Goffette; Louis Goncette; Philippe Hainaut; Frank Hammer; Edith Lavenne; Francis Zech; Philippe Meert; Marc S Reynaert Journal: Radiology Date: 2003-12 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: John D MacKenzie; Javier Nazario-Larrieu; Tianxi Cai; M Stephen Ledbetter; Maria Alejandra Duran-Mendicuti; Philip F Judy; Frank J Rybicki Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2007-12 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Jared Martillotti; Naomi Silva; Jyoti Chhabra; Christian Molstrom; Ryan Coughlin; Michael O'Loughlin; Bret Coughlin Journal: Emerg Radiol Date: 2012-08-17
Authors: Martine Remy-Jardin; Massimo Pistolesi; Lawrence R Goodman; Warren B Gefter; Alexander Gottschalk; John R Mayo; H Dirk Sostman Journal: Radiology Date: 2007-09-11 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Frank Oliver Gerhard Henes; Michael Groth; Philipp G C Begemann; Thorsten Bley; Gerhard Adam; Marc Regier Journal: J Thorac Imaging Date: 2012-03 Impact factor: 3.000
Authors: Thomas Grüning; Rebecca E Mingo; Matthew G Gosling; Sally L Farrell; Brent E Drake; Robert J Loader; Richard D Riordan Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2016-04-08 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Johannes Boos; Patric Kröpil; Rotem S Lanzman; Joel Aissa; Christoph Schleich; Philipp Heusch; Lino M Sawicki; Gerald Antoch; Christoph Thomas Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2016-03-23 Impact factor: 3.039