RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: We compared the effect of iterative model reconstruction (IMR), filtered back projection (FBP), and hybrid iterative reconstruction (HIR) on coronary artery calcium (CAC) scoring. MATERIALS AND METHODS: CAC scans of 30 consecutive patients (18 men and 12 women, age 70.1 ± 12.2 years) were reconstructed with FBP, HIR, and IMR, and the image noise was measured on all images. Two radiologists independently measured the CAC scores using semiautomated software, and interobserver agreement was evaluated. Statistical analysis included the Spearman correlation coefficient and Bland-Altman analysis. RESULTS: The mean image noise on FBP, HIR, and IMR images was 48.0 ± 7.9, 29.6 ± 4.8, and 9.3 ± 1.3 Hounsfield units, respectively. The difference among all reconstruction combinations was significant (P < .01). The CAC score on HIR and IMR scans was 4.2% and 8.9% lower, respectively, than the CAC score on FBP images. There was no significant difference in the mean CAC score among the three reconstructions. The interobserver correlation was excellent for all three reconstructions (r2 = 0.96 FBP, 0.99 HIR, 0.99 IMR); the best Bland-Altman measure of agreement was with IMR, followed by HIR and FBP. CONCLUSION: For CAC scoring, IMR can reduce the image noise and blooming artifacts, and consequently lowers the measured CAC score. IMR can lessen measurement variability and yield stable, reproducible measurements.
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: We compared the effect of iterative model reconstruction (IMR), filtered back projection (FBP), and hybrid iterative reconstruction (HIR) on coronary artery calcium (CAC) scoring. MATERIALS AND METHODS: CAC scans of 30 consecutive patients (18 men and 12 women, age 70.1 ± 12.2 years) were reconstructed with FBP, HIR, and IMR, and the image noise was measured on all images. Two radiologists independently measured the CAC scores using semiautomated software, and interobserver agreement was evaluated. Statistical analysis included the Spearman correlation coefficient and Bland-Altman analysis. RESULTS: The mean image noise on FBP, HIR, and IMR images was 48.0 ± 7.9, 29.6 ± 4.8, and 9.3 ± 1.3 Hounsfield units, respectively. The difference among all reconstruction combinations was significant (P < .01). The CAC score on HIR and IMR scans was 4.2% and 8.9% lower, respectively, than the CAC score on FBP images. There was no significant difference in the mean CAC score among the three reconstructions. The interobserver correlation was excellent for all three reconstructions (r2 = 0.96 FBP, 0.99 HIR, 0.99 IMR); the best Bland-Altman measure of agreement was with IMR, followed by HIR and FBP. CONCLUSION: For CAC scoring, IMR can reduce the image noise and blooming artifacts, and consequently lowers the measured CAC score. IMR can lessen measurement variability and yield stable, reproducible measurements.
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
Authors: Wei Wang; Yan E Zhao; Li Qi; Chang Sheng Zhou; Meng Jie Lu; Jian Xin Yang; Long Jiang Zhang; Guang Ming Lu Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2020-07-13 Impact factor: 3.411