Image quality in coronary computed tomography angiography: influence of adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction at various radiation dose levels

Abstract

Background

Computed tomography (CT) technology is rapidly evolving and software solution developed to optimize image quality and/or lower radiation dose.

Purpose

To investigate the influence of adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction (ASIR) at different radiation doses in coronary CT angiography (CCTA) in detailed image quality.

Material and Methods

A total of 160 CCTA were reconstructed as follows: 55 scans with filtered back projection (FBP) (650 mA), 51 scans (455 mA) with 30% ASIR (ASIR30), and 54 scans (295 mA) with 60% ASIR (ASIR60). For each reconstruction, subjective image quality was assessed by five independent certified cardiologists using a visual grading analysis (VGA) with five predefined image quality criteria consisting of a 5-point scale. Objective measures were contrast, noise, and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR).

Results

The CTDI_vol resulted in 10.3 mGy, 7.4 mGy, and 4.6 mGy for FBP, ASIR30, and ASIR60, respectively. Homogeneity of the left ventricular lumen was the sole aspect in which reconstruction algorithms differed with a decreasing effect for ASIR60 compared to FBP (estimated odds ratio [OR] = 0.49 [95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.32–0.76; P = 0.001]). Decreased sharpness and spatial- and low-contrast resolutions were observed when using ASIR instead of FBP, but differences were not statistically significant. Concerning objective measurements, noise increased significantly for ASIR30 (OR = 1.08; 95% CI = 1.02–1.14; P = 0.006) and ASIR60 (OR = 1.06; 95% CI = 1.01–1.12; P = 0.034) compared to FBP.

Conclusion

ASIR significantly decreased the subjectively assessed homogeneity of the left ventricular lumen and increased the objectively measured noise compared to FBP. Considering these results, ASIR at a reduced radiation dose should be implemented with caution.

Keywords

Cardiac CT angiography technical aspects image quality iterative reconstruction radiation safety

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Halliburton

Abbara

Chen

et al.

Guidelines: SCCT guidelines on radiation dose and dose optimization strategies in cardiovascular CT. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr 2011; 5: 198–224.

Dougeni

Kaulkner

Panayiotakis

. A review of patient dose and optimization methods in adult and paediatric CT scanning. Eur J Radiol 2012; 81: e665–e683.

Brenner

. Should we be concerned about the rapid increase in CT usage? Rev Environ Health 2010; 25: 63–68.

Brenner

. What we know and what we don’t know about cancer risks associated with radiation doses from radiological imaging. Br J Radiol 2014; 87: 20130629–20130629.

ICRP. Radiation Protection: Implications of commission recommendations that doses be kept as low as reading achievable. ICRP publication 22. Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1973.

Willemink

de Jong

Leiner

. Iterative reconstruction techniques for computed tomography Part 1: Technical Principles. Eur Radiol 2013; 23: 1623–1631.

Beister

Kolditz

Kalender

. Iterative reconstruction methods in X-ray CT. Phys Med 2012; 28: 94–108.

Cho

Schoepf

Silverman

et al.

Iterative image reconstruction techniques: cardiothoracic computed tomography applications. J Thorac Imaging 2014; 29: 198–208.

Kordolaimi

Argentos

Pantos

et al.

A new era in computed tomorgraphy dose optimization: The impact of iterative reconstruction on image quality and radiation dose. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2013; 37: 924–931.

10.

Tumur

Soon

Brown

et al.

New scanning technique using adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction (ASIR) significantly reduced the radiation dose of cardiac CT. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol 2013; 57: 292–296.

11.

Leipsic

LaBounty

Heilbron

et al.

Adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction: assessment of image noise and image quality in coronary CT angiography. Am J Roentgenol 2010; 195: 649–654.

12.

Hou

Guo

et al.

The optimal dose reduction level using iterative reconstruction with prospective ECG-triggered coronary CTA using 256-slice MDCT. Eur J Radiol 2012; 81: 3905–3911.

13.

Wang

Schoepf

Bibbs

et al.

CT coronary angiography: image quality with sonogram-affirmed iterative reconstruction compared with filtered-back-projection. Clin Radiol 2013; 68: 272–278.

14.

Bushberg

Seibert

Leidholdt

et al.

The essential physics of medical imaging, 3rd ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2012.

15.

Hsieh

. Computed tomography – principles, design, artifacts and recent advances, 2nd ed. Washington, DC: SPIE Press, 2009.

16.

GE Healthcare. Technical Publication: Discovery CT750 HD Application Tips and Work-Arounds. Direction 5311815-1EN; Revision 1. 2008, USA.

17.

American Heart Association. Circulation – Expert consensus document on coronary computed tomographic angiography. J Am Heart Assoc 2010; 121: 2509–2543.

18.

Båth

Månsson

. Visual grading characteristics (VGC) analysis: a non-parametric rank-invariant statistical method for image quality evaluation. Br J Radiol 2007; 80: 169–176.

19.

Sund

Båth

Kheddache

et al.

Comparison of visual grading analysis and determination of detechtive quantum efficiency for evaluating system performance in digital chest radiography. Eur Radiol 2004; 14: 48–58.

20.

Ledenius

Svensson

Stålhammar

et al.

A method to analyse observer disagreement in visual grading studies: example of assessed image quality in paediatric cerebral multidetector CT images. Br J Radiol 2010; 83: 604–611.

21.

Månsson

. Methods for the evaluation of image quality: A review. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2000; 90: 89–99.

22.

National Electrical Manufacturers Association. Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM). Part 14: Grayscale Standard Display Function. PS 3. 14-2004. 2004; 1-55, Virginia, USA. Available at: http://medical.nema.org/dicom/2004/04_14PU.pdf (last accessed 14 August 2017).

23.

European Commission. European guidelines on quality criteria for computed tomography. EUR16262:1-114. Available at: http://www.drs.dk/guidelines/ct/quality/htmlindex.htm (last accessed 14 August 2017).

24.

Börjesson

Håkansson

Båth

et al.

A software tool for increased efficiency in observer performance studies in radiology. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2005; 114: 45–52.

25.

Håkansson

Svensson

Zachrisson

et al.

VIEWDEX: an efficient and easy-to-use software for observer performance studies. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2010; 139: 42–51.

26.

Samei E, Krupinski E. The handbook of medical image perception and techniques. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010.

27.

Fleiss

. Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters. Psychol Bull 1971; 76: 378–382.

28.

Efron

. Bootstrap methods: Another look at the jackknife. Ann Stat 1979; 7: 1–26.

29.

Miller DP. Obtain robust confidence intervals for any statistic. SAS Institute Inc. 2004. Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth Annual.

30.

Sterne

JAC

Smith

Cox

. Stifting the evidence – what’s wrong with significance tests? BMJ 2001; 322: 226–231.

31.

Krupinski

. The role of perception in imaging: Past and future. Semin Nucl Med 2011; 41: 392–400.

32.

Chesters

. Human visual perception and ROC methodology in medical imaging. Phys Med Biol 1992; 37: 1433–1476.

33.

Wood

. Decision making in radiology. Radiology 1999; 211: 601–603.

34.

Shu

MadKenzie

Smith

et al.

Lowering the thyroid dose in screening examinations of the cervical spine. Emerg Radiol 2006; 12: 133–136.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.24 MB