Andrew D Choi1, Eric S Leifer2, Jeannie Yu3, Sujata M Shanbhag3, Kathie Bronson3, Andrew E Arai3, Marcus Y Chen4. 1. Advanced Cardiovascular Imaging Laboratory, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA; Division of Cardiology and Department of Radiology, The George Washington University School of Medicine, Washington, DC, USA. 2. Office of Biostatistics Research, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA. 3. Advanced Cardiovascular Imaging Laboratory, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA. 4. Advanced Cardiovascular Imaging Laboratory, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA. Electronic address: marcus.chen@nih.gov.
Abstract
BACKGROUND:Coronary artery calcium (CAC) predicts coronary heart disease events and is important for individualized cardiac risk assessment. This report assesses the interscan variability of CT for coronary calcium quantification using image acquisition with standard and reduced radiation dose protocols and whether the use of reduced radiation dose acquisition with iterative reconstruction (IR; "reduced-dose/IR ") allows for similar image quality and reproducibility when compared to standard radiation dose acquisition with filtered back projection (FBP; "standard-dose/FBP") on 320-detector row computed tomography (320-CT). METHODS:200 consecutive patients (60 ± 9 years, 59% male) prospectively underwent two standard- and two reduced-dose acquisitions (800 total scans, 1600 reconstructions) using 320 slice CT and 120 kV tube voltage. Automated tube current modulation was used and for reduced-dose scans, prescribed tube current was lowered by 70%. Image noise and Agatston scores were determined and compared. RESULTS: Regarding stratification by Agatston score categories (0, 1-10, 11-100, 101-400, >400), reduced-dose/IR versus standard-dose/FBP had excellent agreement at 89% (95% CI: 86-92%) with kappa 0.86 (95% CI: 0.81-0.90). Standard-dose/FBP rescan agreement was 93% (95% CI: 89-96%) with kappa = 0.91 (95% CI: 0.86-0.95) while reduced-dose/IR rescan agreement was similar at 91% (95% CI: 87-94%) with kappa 0.88 (95% CI: 0.83-0.93). Image noise was significantly higher but clinically acceptable for reduced-dose/IR (18 Hounsfield Unit [HU] mean) compared to standard-dose/FBP (16 HU; p < 0.0001). Median radiation exposure was 74% lower for reduced- (0.37 mSv) versus standard-dose (1.4 mSv) acquisitions. CONCLUSION: Rescan agreement was excellent for reduced-dose image acquisition with iterative reconstruction and standard-dose acquisition with filtered back projection for the quantification of coronary calcium by CT. These methods make it possible to reduce radiation exposure by 74%. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01621594. UNIQUE IDENTIFIER: NCT01621594. Published by Elsevier Inc.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Coronary artery calcium (CAC) predicts coronary heart disease events and is important for individualized cardiac risk assessment. This report assesses the interscan variability of CT for coronary calcium quantification using image acquisition with standard and reduced radiation dose protocols and whether the use of reduced radiation dose acquisition with iterative reconstruction (IR; "reduced-dose/IR ") allows for similar image quality and reproducibility when compared to standard radiation dose acquisition with filtered back projection (FBP; "standard-dose/FBP") on 320-detector row computed tomography (320-CT). METHODS: 200 consecutive patients (60 ± 9 years, 59% male) prospectively underwent two standard- and two reduced-dose acquisitions (800 total scans, 1600 reconstructions) using 320 slice CT and 120 kV tube voltage. Automated tube current modulation was used and for reduced-dose scans, prescribed tube current was lowered by 70%. Image noise and Agatston scores were determined and compared. RESULTS: Regarding stratification by Agatston score categories (0, 1-10, 11-100, 101-400, >400), reduced-dose/IR versus standard-dose/FBP had excellent agreement at 89% (95% CI: 86-92%) with kappa 0.86 (95% CI: 0.81-0.90). Standard-dose/FBP rescan agreement was 93% (95% CI: 89-96%) with kappa = 0.91 (95% CI: 0.86-0.95) while reduced-dose/IR rescan agreement was similar at 91% (95% CI: 87-94%) with kappa 0.88 (95% CI: 0.83-0.93). Image noise was significantly higher but clinically acceptable for reduced-dose/IR (18 Hounsfield Unit [HU] mean) compared to standard-dose/FBP (16 HU; p < 0.0001). Median radiation exposure was 74% lower for reduced- (0.37 mSv) versus standard-dose (1.4 mSv) acquisitions. CONCLUSION: Rescan agreement was excellent for reduced-dose image acquisition with iterative reconstruction and standard-dose acquisition with filtered back projection for the quantification of coronary calcium by CT. These methods make it possible to reduce radiation exposure by 74%. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01621594. UNIQUE IDENTIFIER: NCT01621594. Published by Elsevier Inc.
Authors: Julia Stehli; Tobias A Fuchs; Sacha Bull; Olivier F Clerc; Mathias Possner; Ronny R Buechel; Oliver Gaemperli; Philipp A Kaufmann Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2014-08-26 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Robert C Detrano; Melissa Anderson; Jennifer Nelson; Nathan D Wong; J Jeffrey Carr; Michael McNitt-Gray; Diane E Bild Journal: Radiology Date: 2005-06-21 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Szilard Voros; Juan J Rivera; Daniel S Berman; Ron Blankstein; Matthew J Budoff; Ricardo C Cury; Milind Y Desai; Damini Dey; Sandra S Halliburton; Harvey S Hecht; Khurram Nasir; Raul D Santos; Michael D Shapiro; Allen J Taylor; Uma S Valeti; Phillip M Young; Gaby Weissman Journal: J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr Date: 2011-01-20
Authors: Matthew J Budoff; Leslee J Shaw; Sandy T Liu; Steven R Weinstein; Tristen P Mosler; Philip H Tseng; Ferdinand R Flores; Tracy Q Callister; Paolo Raggi; Daniel S Berman Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2007-04-20 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Robert Detrano; Alan D Guerci; J Jeffrey Carr; Diane E Bild; Gregory Burke; Aaron R Folsom; Kiang Liu; Steven Shea; Moyses Szklo; David A Bluemke; Daniel H O'Leary; Russell Tracy; Karol Watson; Nathan D Wong; Richard A Kronmal Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2008-03-27 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Wei-Hua Yin; Bin Lu; Nan Li; Lei Han; Zhi-Hui Hou; Run-Ze Wu; Yong-Jian Wu; Hong-Xia Niu; Shi-Liang Jiang; Aleksander W Krazinski; Ullrich Ebersberger; Felix G Meinel; U Joseph Schoepf Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2013-10-23
Authors: Martin J Willemink; Annemarie M den Harder; Wouter Foppen; Arnold M R Schilham; Rienk Rienks; Eduard M Laufer; Koen Nieman; Pim A de Jong; Ricardo P J Budde; Hendrik M Nathoe; Tim Leiner Journal: J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr Date: 2015-08-28
Authors: Cathérine Gebhard; Michael Fiechter; Tobias A Fuchs; Jelena R Ghadri; Bernhard A Herzog; Felix Kuhn; Julia Stehli; Ennio Müller; Egle Kazakauskaite; Oliver Gaemperli; Philipp A Kaufmann Journal: Int J Cardiol Date: 2012-09-06 Impact factor: 4.164
Authors: Mouaz H Al-Mallah; Timothy M Bateman; Kelley R Branch; Andrew Crean; Eric L Gingold; Randall C Thompson; Sarah E McKenney; Edward J Miller; Venkatesh L Murthy; Koen Nieman; Todd C Villines; Michael V Yester; Andrew J Einstein; John J Mahmarian Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2022-09-02 Impact factor: 3.872