| Literature DB >> 31504074 |
Junwoo Kim1, Bon Seung Goo1, Young-Seok Cho2, Tae-Jin Youn2, Dong Jun Choi1, Amar Dhanantwari3, Mani Vembar3, Eun Ju Chun1.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the diagnostic performance and image quality of an iterative model-based reconstruction (IMR) using a 100-kVp protocol for the assessment of heavily calcified coronary vessels, compared to those of filtered back projection (FBP) and hybrid iterative technique (iDose4), and also compared to those of IMR with standard 120 kVp protocol.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31504074 PMCID: PMC6736300 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0222315
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Objective image quality of each reconstruction method.
Image noise was defined as the standard deviation (SD) of the measured attenuation within circular region of interest (ROI) in the ascending aorta, main pulmonary artery, interventricular septum, and left ventricular cavity. (A) FBP, (B) iDose4, (C) IMR.
Fig 2Subjective image quality.
(A) Excellent denoted smooth and clear vessel countour without any noise or artifact, providing useful diagnostic information. (B) Good denoted slightly noisy or artefactual image, but with clear vessel contour, providing sufficient diagnostic information. (C) Fair denoted noisy and artefactual image with partial obscurity in vessel countour, providing acceptable diagnostic information. (D) Poor denoted a very noisy and artefactual image, providing insufficient diagnostic information.
Patient demographics and scan parameters.
| Parameter | Total | Low-kVp group | Standard-kVp group | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years), mean±SD | 69.3±8.8 | 68.2± 9.6 | 70.4 ± 7.9 | 0.337 |
| Male | 44 (73.3%) | 23 (76.7%) | 21 (70.0%) | 0.771 |
| Body mass index (kg/m2) | 24.3 ±3.2 | 24.3 ± 2.9 | 24.2 ± 3.5 | 0.900 |
| Risk factors for coronary artery disease | ||||
| Diabetes | 25 (41.7%) | 13 (43.3%) | 12 (40.0%) | 1.000 |
| Hypertension | 47 (78.3%) | 24 (80.0%) | 23 (76.7%) | 1.000 |
| Current smoker | 12 (20.0%) | 8 (26.7%) | 4 (13.3%) | 0.333 |
| Ex-smoker | 21 (35.0%) | 10 (33.3%) | 11 (36.7%) | 1.000 |
| Hyperlipidemia | 17 (28.3%) | 10 (33.3%) | 7 (23.3%) | 0.567 |
| Family history of previous CHD | 7 (11.7%) | 3 (10.0%) | 4 (13.3%) | 1.000 |
| Medication | ||||
| Statin | 12 (20.0%) | 5 (16.7%) | 7 (23.3%) | 0.748 |
| Aspirin | 20 (33.3%) | 7 (23.3%) | 13 (43.3%) | 0.170 |
| Heart rate (beats/min) | 64.0 ± 11.9 | 63.9 ± 11.7 | 64.2 ± 12.4 | |
| NSR with HR < 75/min | 42 (70.0%) | 22 (73.3%) | 20 (66.7%) | 0.779 |
| HR > 75/min | 11 (18.3%) | 5 (16.7%) | 6 (20.0%) | 1.000 |
| Arrhythmia or non-NSR | 9 (15.0%) | 4 (13.3%) | 5 (16.7%) | 1.000 |
| Agatston score | 1308.7 ± 903.6 | 1376.3 ± 873.5 | 1241.1 ± 942.8 | 0.567 |
| 400–1000 | 30 (50.0%) | 12 (40.0%) | 18 (60.0%) | 0.196 |
| > 1000 | 30 (50.0%) | 18 (60.0%) | 12 (40.0%) | |
| kVp | - | 100 | 120 | |
| Tube current-time product (mAs) | - | 920.3 ± 96.5 | 812.0 ± 141.2 | 0.001 |
| CT dose index volume (mGy) | - | 35.6 ± 5.6 | 52.2 ± 9.1 | <0.001 |
| Dose-length product (mGy·cm) | - | 682.6 ± 152.6 | 925.4 ± 188.3 | <0.001 |
| Scan range (cm) | - | 141.5 ±24.2 | 127.5 ± 11.2 | 0.006 |
| Effective radiation dose (mSv) | - | 9.5 ± 2.1 | 12.9 ± 2.6 | <0.001 |
Note—SD, standard deviation; CHD, coronary heart disease; HR, heart rate; NSR, normal sinus rhythm, kVp, peak kilovoltage
Comparison of objective image quality of CCTA using three different reconstruction methods in each of the 100 kVp and 120 kVp protocols.
| HU1) | SD | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROI | FBP | iDose4 | IMR | FBP | iDose4 | IMR |
| Ascending aorta | 414.7 ± 71.9 | 415.6 ± 72.3 | 415.2 ± 72.4 | 58.7 ± 12.1 | 40.6 ± 8.4 | 16.5 ± 2.6 |
| Pulmonary artery | 341.3 ± 75.1 | 342.2 ± 75.1 | 341.9 ± 74.6 | 60.2 ± 13.7 | 41.5 ± 9.8 | 16.6 ± 4.9 |
| Left ventricle cavity | 380.4 ± 66.5 | 379.6 ± 68.1 | 380.0 ± 66.9 | 59.0 ± 10.0 | 39.4 ± 7.7 | 15.4 ± 2.5 |
| Left ventricle septum | 106.6 ± 17.1 | 115.1 ± 17.8 | 106.4 ± 16.5 | 59.4 ± 11.6 | 39.5 ± 8.6 | 16.1 ± 3.2 |
| Ascending aorta | 475.7 ± 68.6 | 476.1 ± 69.4 | 461.1 ± 68.4 | 42.4 ± 6.3 | 29.2 ± 5.7 | 17.4 ± 3.5 |
| Pulmonary artery | 392.2 ± 71.4 | 395.1 ± 73.6 | 393.1 ± 79.4 | 44.1 ± 7.7 | 30.5 ± 7.2 | 17.5 ± 3.8 |
| Left ventricle cavity | 455.2 ± 67.3 | 457.9 ± 67.9 | 450.8 ± 66.4 | 50.1 ± 10.9 | 32.4 ± 7.7 | 19.0 ± 4.1 |
| Left ventricle septum | 134.0 ± 27.8 | 135.8 ± 28.9 | 131.0 ± 28.1 | 48.0 ± 9.8 | 31.8 ± 6.4 | 19.1 ± 5.1 |
Data are means ± standard deviations of the regions of interest.
Note–HU, Hounsefield unit; SD, standard deviation; ROI, region of interest; FBP, filtered back projection; iDose4, hybrid-iterative reconstruction set to level 4; IMR, iterative model reconstruction
1) Statistical significance among three reconstruction methods was one-way ANOVA with Bonferroni post-hoc nalysis.
2) Significantly different among three different reconstructions using Bonferroni post-test
Comparison of subjective image quality of CCTA using three different reconstruction methods in each of the 100 kVp and 120 kVp protocols.
| Image quality grading score | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FBP | iDose4 | IMR | p-value | |
| LAD | 3.20 ± 0.71 | 3.57 ± 0.57 | 3.73 ± 0.45 | <0.05 |
| LCx | 3.50 ± 0.63 | 3.60 ± 0.50 | 3.80 ± 0.41 | <0.05 |
| RCA | 3.27 ± 0.79 | 3.59 ± 0.57 | 3.78 ± 0.42 | <0.05 |
| Total | 3.32 ± 0.72 | 3.58 ± 0.54 | 3.77 ± 0.43 | <0.05 |
| LAD | 3.20 ± 0.89 | 3.43 ± 0.86 | 3.67 ± 0.66 | <0.05 |
| LCx | 3.13 ± 0.90 | 3.38 ± 0.78 | 3.55 ± 0.69 | <0.05 |
| RCA | 3.33 ± 0.71 | 3.37 ± 0.77 | 3.57 ± 0.68 | <0.05 |
| Total | 3.22 ± 0.83 | 3.39 ± 0.79 | 3.66 ± 0.60 | <0.05 |
Note–FBP, filtered back projection; iDose4, hybrid-iterative reconstruction set to level 4; IMR, iterative model reconstruction; LAD, left anterior descending artery; LCX, left circumflex artery; RCA, right coronary artery
*P < 0.05 means significant statistically significant.
Diagnostic accuracy of CCTA using three different reconstruction methods in each of the 100 kVp and 120 kVp protocols.
| Per patient | Per segment | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FBP | iDose4 | IMR | FBP | iDose4 | IMR | |
| Sensitivity | 96.2% | 100% | 100% | 82.6% | 87.5% | 90.3% |
| Specificity | 50.0% | 60.0% | 60.0% | 90.9% | 94.2% | 95.6% |
| Positive predictive value | 92.6% | 92.6% | 92.6% | 75.4% | 83.1% | 87.2% |
| Negative predictive value | 66.7% | 100% | 100% | 93.9% | 95.9% | 96.8% |
| Diagnostic accuracy | 90.0% | 93.3% | 93.3% | 88.8% | 92.5% | 94.3% |
| Sensitivity | 96.2% | 96.2% | 96.2% | 80.2% | 85.6% | 89.2% |
| Specificity | 25.0% | 50.0% | 75.0% | 89.5% | 93.3% | 95.0% |
| Positive predictive value | 89.3% | 92.6% | 96.2% | 71.2% | 80.5% | 85.3% |
| Negative predictive value | 50.0% | 66.7% | 75.0% | 93.3% | 95.2% | 96.4% |
| Diagnostic accuracy | 86.7% | 90.0% | 93.3% | 87.2% | 91.4% | 93.6% |
Note—FBP, filtered back projection; iDose4, hybrid-iterative reconstruction set to level 4; IMR, iterative model reconstruction
* p<0.05, statistical significance of diagnostic performance using by exact McNemar test between IMR and FBP
† p<0.05, statistical significance of diagnostic performance using by exact McNemar test between IMR and iDose4
Fig 3A 48-year-old female with high calcium score, of greater than 800.
Curved MPR reformatted RCA with filter back projection image (A) and iDose4 image (B) shows two significant obstructive lesions are seeen at mid RCA (arrows). However, IMR image (C) shows that the lesion in the proximal portion with clacification was a false lesion due to blooming artifact and only the lesion in the distal portion was a significant obstructive lesion. Invasive coronary angioraphy (D) confirmed the presence of one lesion as shown in the IMR image.
Image quality and diagnostic performance of IMR between 100 kVp and 120 kVp protocol.
| 100-kVp group | 120-kVp group | p-value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| | |||
| Ascending aorta | 461.1 ± 68.4 | 415.2 ± 72.4 | 0.014 |
| Pulmonary artery | 393.1 ± 79.4 | 341.9 ± 74.6 | 0.013 |
| Left ventricle cavity | 450.8 ± 66.4 | 380.0 ± 66.9 | <0.001 |
| Left ventricle septum | 131.0 ± 28.1 | 106.4 ± 16.5 | <0.001 |
| | |||
| Ascending aorta | 17.4 ± 3.5 | 16.5 ± 2.6 | 0.297 |
| Pulmonary artery | 17.5 ± 3.8 | 16.6 ± 4.9 | 0.402 |
| Left ventricle cavity | 19.0 ± 4.1 | 15.4 ± 2.5 | <0.001 |
| Left ventricle septum | 19.1 ± 5.1 | 16.1 ± 3.2 | 0.009 |
| LAD | 3.67 ± 0.66 | 3.73 ± 0.45 | 0.650 |
| LCx | 3.55 ± 0.69 | 3.80 ± 0.41 | 0.112 |
| RCA | 3.57 ± 0.68 | 3.78 ± 0.42 | 0.115 |
| Total | 3.66 ± 0.60 | 3.77 ± 0.43 | 0.155 |
| | |||
| Sensitivity | 96.2% | 100% | NS |
| Specificity | 75.0% | 60.0% | NS |
| Positive predictive value | 96.2% | 92.6% | NS |
| Negative predictive value | 75.0% | 100% | NS |
| Diagnostic accuracy | 93.3% | 93.3% | 1.0 |
| | |||
| Sensitivity | 89.2% | 90.3% | 0.964 |
| Specificity | 95.0% | 95.6% | 0.856 |
| Positive predictive value | 85.3% | 87.2% | 0.994 |
| Negative predictive value | 96.4% | 96.8% | 0.827 |
| Diagnostic accuracy | 93.6% | 94.3% | 0.768 |
Data are means ± standard deviations of the visualization score.
Note–HU, Hounsefield unit; ROI, region of interest; SD, standard deviation; LAD, left anterior descending artery; LCX, left circumflex artery; RCA, right coronary artery
* p <0.05