Takafumi Emoto1, Masafumi Kidoh2, Seitaro Oda3, Takeshi Nakaura3, Yasunori Nagayama3, Akira Sasao3, Yoshinori Funama4, Satoshi Araki5, Seiji Takashio5, Kenji Sakamoto5, Eiichiro Yamamoto5, Koichi Kaikita5, Kenichi Tsujita5, Yasuyuki Yamashita3. 1. Department of Central Radiology, Kumamoto University Hospital, 1-1-1 Honjyo, Chuo-ku, Kumamoto, 860-8556, Japan. 2. Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Faculty of Life Sciences, Kumamoto University 1-1-1 Honjyo, Chuo-ku, Kumamoto, 860-8556, Japan. masafkidoh@yahoo.co.jp. 3. Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Faculty of Life Sciences, Kumamoto University 1-1-1 Honjyo, Chuo-ku, Kumamoto, 860-8556, Japan. 4. Department of Medical Physics, Faculty of Life Sciences, Kumamoto University 1-1-1, Honjo, Chuo-ku, Kumamoto, 860-8556, Japan. 5. Department of Cardiology, Faculty of Life Sciences, Kumamoto University 1-1-1 Honjyo, Chuo-ku, Kumamoto, 860-8556, Japan.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare the effects of hybrid iterative reconstruction (HIR) and model-based iterative reconstruction (MBIR) that incorporates a beam-hardening model for myocardial extracellular volume (ECV) quantification by cardiac CT using MRI as a reference standard. METHODS: In this retrospective study, a total of 34 patients were evaluated using cardiac CT and MRI. Paired CT image sets were created using HIR and MBIR with a beam-hardening model. We calculated mean absolute differences and correlations between the global mid-ventricular ECV derived from CT and MRI via Pearson correlation analysis. In addition, we performed qualitative analysis of image noise and beam-hardening artifacts on postcontrast images using a four-point scale: 1 = extensive, 2 = strong, 3 = mild, and 4 = minimal. RESULTS: The mean absolute difference between the ECV derived from CT and MRI for MBIR was significantly smaller than that for HIR (MBIR 3.74 ± 3.59%; HIR 4.95 ± 3.48%, p = 0.034). MBIR improved the correlation between the ECV derived from CT and MRI when compared with HIR (MBIR, r = 0.60, p < 0.001; HIR, r = 0.47, p = 0.006). In qualitative analysis, MBIR significantly reduced image noise and beam-hardening artifacts when compared with HIR ([image noise, MBIR 3.4 ± 0.7; HIR 2.1 ± 0.8, p < 0.001], [beam-hardening artifacts, MBIR 3.8 ± 0.4; HIR 2.6 ± 1.0, p < 0.001]). CONCLUSIONS: MBIR with a beam-hardening model effectively reduced image noise and beam-hardening artifacts and improved myocardial ECV quantification when compared with HIR using MRI as a reference standard. KEY POINTS: • MBIR with a beam-hardening model effectively reduced image noise and beam-hardening artifacts. • The mean absolute difference between the global mid-ventricular ECV derived from CT and MRI for MBIR was significantly smaller than that for conventional HIR. • MBIR provided more accurate myocardial CT number and improved ECV quantification when compared with HIR.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the effects of hybrid iterative reconstruction (HIR) and model-based iterative reconstruction (MBIR) that incorporates a beam-hardening model for myocardial extracellular volume (ECV) quantification by cardiac CT using MRI as a reference standard. METHODS: In this retrospective study, a total of 34 patients were evaluated using cardiac CT and MRI. Paired CT image sets were created using HIR and MBIR with a beam-hardening model. We calculated mean absolute differences and correlations between the global mid-ventricular ECV derived from CT and MRI via Pearson correlation analysis. In addition, we performed qualitative analysis of image noise and beam-hardening artifacts on postcontrast images using a four-point scale: 1 = extensive, 2 = strong, 3 = mild, and 4 = minimal. RESULTS: The mean absolute difference between the ECV derived from CT and MRI for MBIR was significantly smaller than that for HIR (MBIR 3.74 ± 3.59%; HIR 4.95 ± 3.48%, p = 0.034). MBIR improved the correlation between the ECV derived from CT and MRI when compared with HIR (MBIR, r = 0.60, p < 0.001; HIR, r = 0.47, p = 0.006). In qualitative analysis, MBIR significantly reduced image noise and beam-hardening artifacts when compared with HIR ([image noise, MBIR 3.4 ± 0.7; HIR 2.1 ± 0.8, p < 0.001], [beam-hardening artifacts, MBIR 3.8 ± 0.4; HIR 2.6 ± 1.0, p < 0.001]). CONCLUSIONS: MBIR with a beam-hardening model effectively reduced image noise and beam-hardening artifacts and improved myocardial ECV quantification when compared with HIR using MRI as a reference standard. KEY POINTS: • MBIR with a beam-hardening model effectively reduced image noise and beam-hardening artifacts. • The mean absolute difference between the global mid-ventricular ECV derived from CT and MRI for MBIR was significantly smaller than that for conventional HIR. • MBIR provided more accurate myocardial CT number and improved ECV quantification when compared with HIR.
Authors: Julia Anna Lurz; Christian Luecke; David Lang; Christian Besler; Karl-Philipp Rommel; Karin Klingel; Reinhard Kandolf; Volker Adams; Katharina Schöne; Gerhard Hindricks; Gerhard Schuler; Axel Linke; Holger Thiele; Matthias Gutberlet; Philipp Lurz Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2017-04-12
Authors: Ji Soo Song; Jeong Min Lee; Ji Young Sohn; Jeong-Hee Yoon; Joon Koo Han; Byung Ihn Choi Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2014-08-29 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: Daniel R Messroghli; James C Moon; Vanessa M Ferreira; Lars Grosse-Wortmann; Taigang He; Peter Kellman; Julia Mascherbauer; Reza Nezafat; Michael Salerno; Erik B Schelbert; Andrew J Taylor; Richard Thompson; Martin Ugander; Ruud B van Heeswijk; Matthias G Friedrich Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2017-10-09 Impact factor: 5.364
Authors: Marco Fogante; Giacomo Agliata; Maria Chiara Basile; Paolo Compagnucci; Giovanni Volpato; Umberto Falanga; Giulia Stronati; Federico Guerra; Davide Vignale; Antonio Esposito; Antonio Dello Russo; Michela Casella; Andrea Giovagnoni Journal: Medicina (Kaunas) Date: 2021-05-07 Impact factor: 2.430