Radiation dose and image noise evaluation in coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) using an iterative reconstruction algorithm.

INTRODUCTION The purpose of this study was to evaluate radiation dose reduction in coronary computerised tomography angiography (CCTA), using a commercially available iterative reconstruction (IR) algorithm as well as the behaviour of the image noise. METHODS A total cohort of 47 patients underwent CCTA examination on a 64-slice multi-detector CT. They were divided into four groups according to the time when the examination was performed (before or after the installation of iDose) and the acquisition protocol followed (prospective or retrospective electrocardiography-ECG gated). The images acquired with reduced dose settings were reconstructed using two levels (L4 and L6) of the iDose4 algorithm. Image noise was measured in all cases. RESULTS In retrospective acquisition, images acquired with a 46% lower radiation dose and reconstructed with iDose4 L6 provided noise comparable to that in the full-dose filtered back-projection images. For the prospective acquisition mode, a slight decrease (26%) in radiation dose resulted in noise improvement in low-dose images reconstructed with iDose4 L4 (16% noise removal) and L6 (30% noise removal). CONCLUSIONS The fact that image quality is improved while radiation exposure is reduced indicates that there is room for a further reduction in exposure settings. Additionally, the combination of iDose4 with prospective acquisition is able to significantly reduce the radiation dose associated with CCTA at values of about 2 mSv and even lower.

[1]  M. Vembar,et al.  The optimal dose reduction level using iterative reconstruction with prospective ECG-triggered coronary CTA using 256-slice MDCT. , 2012, European journal of radiology.

[2]  Hugo A Katus,et al.  Reduction of radiation exposure and improvement of image quality with BMI-adapted prospective cardiac computed tomography and iterative reconstruction. , 2012, European journal of radiology.

[3]  U. Schoepf,et al.  Image quality and radiation dose of low dose coronary CT angiography in obese patients: sinogram affirmed iterative reconstruction versus filtered back projection. , 2012, European journal of radiology.

[4]  Eun-Ah Park,et al.  Iterative reconstruction of dual-source coronary CT angiography: assessment of image quality and radiation dose , 2012, The International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging.

[5]  C. Stefanadis.  Ionising radiation: not the big bad wolf, but definitely not little red riding hood. , 2012, Hellenic journal of cardiology : HJC = Hellenike kardiologike epitheorese.

[6]  B. Choi,et al.  80-kVp CT Using Iterative Reconstruction in Image Space Algorithm for the Detection of Hypervascular Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Phantom and Initial Clinical Experience , 2012, Korean journal of radiology.

[7]  S. Achenbach,et al.  Iterative reconstruction in image space (IRIS) in cardiac computed tomography: initial experience , 2011, The International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging.

[8]  C. Fink,et al.  Coronary CT angiography: image quality, diagnostic accuracy, and potential for radiation dose reduction using a novel iterative image reconstruction technique—comparison with traditional filtered back projection , 2011, European Radiology.

[9]  G. Israel,et al.  Impact of Adaptive Statistical Iterative Reconstruction (ASIR) on radiation dose and image quality in aortic dissection studies: a qualitative and quantitative analysis. , 2011, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[10]  K. Ohtomo,et al.  Adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction for volume-rendered computed tomography portovenography: improvement of image quality , 2010, Japanese Journal of Radiology.

[11]  J. Leipsic,et al.  Adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction: assessment of image noise and image quality in coronary CT angiography. , 2010, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[12]  James K Min,et al.  Estimated radiation dose reduction using adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction in coronary CT angiography: the ERASIR study. , 2010, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[13]  I. Seimenis,et al.  Reduction of the estimated radiation dose and associated patient risk with prospective ECG-gated 256-slice CT coronary angiography , 2009, Physics in medicine and biology.

[14]  Matthew J. Walker,et al.  Prospectively gated axial CT coronary angiography: preliminary experiences with a novel low-dose technique , 2009, European Radiology.

[15]  M. Takada,et al.  Radiation dose reduction and coronary assessability of prospective electrocardiogram-gated computed tomography coronary angiography: comparison with retrospective electrocardiogram-gated helical scan. , 2008, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[16]  Arik Wolak,et al.  Algorithm for radiation dose reduction with helical dual source coronary computed tomography angiography in clinical practice. , 2008, Journal of cardiovascular computed tomography.

[17]  Masao Kiguchi,et al.  Prospective versus retrospective ECG-gated 64-detector coronary CT angiography: assessment of image quality, stenosis, and radiation dose. , 2008, Radiology.

[18]  Rémy Morello,et al.  Coronary arteries: diagnostic performance of 16- versus 64-section spiral CT compared with invasive coronary angiography--meta-analysis. , 2007, Radiology.

[19]  A. Einstein,et al.  Estimating risk of cancer associated with radiation exposure from 64-slice computed tomography coronary angiography. , 2007, JAMA.

[20]  A. Schmermund,et al.  Use of automatic exposure control in multislice computed tomography of the coronaries: comparison of 16-slice and 64-slice scanner data with conventional coronary angiography , 2007, Heart.

[21]  Jonathan G Goldin,et al.  Assessment of Coronary Artery Disease by Cardiac Computed Tomography: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association Committee on Cardiovascular Imaging and Intervention, Council on Cardiovascular Radiology and Intervention, and Committee on Cardiac Imaging, Council on Clinical Cardiolog , 2006, Circulation.

[22]  Peter Wilde,et al.  Comparison of radiation doses from multislice computed tomography coronary angiography and conventional diagnostic angiography. , 2006, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[23]  Jörg Hausleiter,et al.  Radiation Dose Estimates From Cardiac Multislice Computed Tomography in Daily Practice: Impact of Different Scanning Protocols on Effective Dose Estimates , 2006, Circulation.

[24]  Takeshi Nakaura,et al.  Abdominal CT with low tube voltage: preliminary observations about radiation dose, contrast enhancement, image quality, and noise. , 2005, Radiology.

[25]  Gabriel P. Krestin,et al.  High-Resolution Spiral Computed Tomography Coronary Angiography in Patients Referred for Diagnostic Conventional Coronary Angiography , 2005, Circulation.

[26]  G. Raff,et al.  Diagnostic accuracy of noninvasive coronary angiography using 64-slice spiral computed tomography. , 2005, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[27]  M. Kalra,et al.  Techniques and applications of automatic tube current modulation for CT. , 2004, Radiology.

[28]  R. Sievert,et al.  Book Reviews : Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (as amended 1959 and revised 1962). I.C.R.P. Publication 6. 70 pp. PERGAMON PRESS. Oxford, London and New York, 1964. £1 5s. 0d. [TB/54] , 1964 .

[29]  P. Raggi,et al.  Myocardial perfusion imaging with computed tomography: can it be used in clinical practice? , 2013, Hellenic journal of cardiology : HJC = Hellenike kardiologike epitheorese.

[30]  M. Walker,et al.  Dose and image quality comparison between prospectively gated axial and retrospectively gated helical coronary CT angiography. , 2011, The British journal of radiology.

[31]  S. Abbara,et al.  Prospectively Gated Transverse Coronary CT Angiography versus Retrospectively Gated Helical Technique: Improved Image Quality and Reduced Radiation Dose , 2008 .

[32]  Ne Pacific.  Prospective versus retrospective ECG gating for 64-detector CT of the coronary arteries: comparison of image quality and patient radiation dose , 2008 .

[33]  James C Carr,et al.  ACCF/ACR/SCCT/SCMR/ASNC/NASCI/SCAI/SIR 2006 appropriateness criteria for cardiac computed tomography and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Quality Strategic Directions Committee Appropriateness Criteria Working Group, American College of Ra , 2006, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[34]  A. Schröter,et al.  # Springer-Verlag 2006 , 2005 .

[35]  Icrp.  1990 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection , 1991 .