La Radiologia medica · 2018
Diagnostic efficacy of model-based iterative reconstruction algorithm in an assessment of coronary artery in comparison with standard hybrid-Iterative reconstruction algorithm: dose reduction and image quality.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Ippolito Davide, Riva Luca, Talei Franzesi Cammillo R, Cangiotti Cecilia, De Vito Andrea, Di Gennaro Filiberto, D'andrea Gabriele, Crespi Andrea, Sironi Sandro
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To evaluate the image quality and radiation dose exposure of low-dose coronary CTA (cCTA) study, reconstructed with the new model-based iterative reconstruction algorithm (IMR), compared with standard hybrid-iterative reconstruction (iDose4) cCTA in patients with suspected coronary artery disease.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ninety-eight patients with an indication for coronary CT study were prospectively enrolled. Fifty-two patients (study group) underwent 256-MDCT low-dose cCTA (80 kV; automated-mAs; 60 mL of CM, 350 mgL/mL) with prospective ECG-triggering acquisition and IMR. A control group of 46 patients underwent 256-MDCT standard prospective ECG-gated protocol (100 kV; automated-mAs; 70 mL of CM, 400 mgL/mL; iDose4). Subjective and objective image quality (attenuation value, SD, SNR and CNR) were evaluated by two radiologists subjectively. Radiation dose exposure was quantified as DLP, CTDIvol and ED.
RESULTS: Mean values of mAs were significantly lower for IMR-cCTA (167 ± 62 mAs) compared to iDose-cCTA (278 ± 55 mAs), p < 0.001. With a significant reduction of 38% in radiation dose exposure (DLP: IMR-cCTA 91.7 ± 26 mGy cm vs. iDose-cCTA 148.6 ± 35 mGy cm; p value < 0.001), despite the use of different CM, we found higher mean attenuation values of the coronary arteries in IMR group compared to iDose4 (mean density in LAD: 491HU IMR-cCTA vs. 443HU iDose-cCTA; p = 0.03). We observed a significant higher value of SNR and CNR in study group due to a lower noise level. Qualitative analysis did not reveal any significant differences between the two groups (p = 0.23).
CONCLUSIONS: Low-dose cCTA study combined with IMR reconstruction allows to correctly evaluate coronary arteries disease, offering high-quality images and significant radiation dose exposure reduction (38%), as compared to standard cCTA protocol.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ninety-eight patients with an indication for coronary CT study were prospectively enrolled. Fifty-two patients (study group) underwent 256-MDCT low-dose cCTA (80 kV; automated-mAs; 60 mL of CM, 350 mgL/mL) with prospective ECG-triggering acquisition and IMR. A control group of 46 patients underwent 256-MDCT standard prospective ECG-gated protocol (100 kV; automated-mAs; 70 mL of CM, 400 mgL/mL; iDose4). Subjective and objective image quality (attenuation value, SD, SNR and CNR) were evaluated by two radiologists subjectively. Radiation dose exposure was quantified as DLP, CTDIvol and ED.
RESULTS: Mean values of mAs were significantly lower for IMR-cCTA (167 ± 62 mAs) compared to iDose-cCTA (278 ± 55 mAs), p < 0.001. With a significant reduction of 38% in radiation dose exposure (DLP: IMR-cCTA 91.7 ± 26 mGy cm vs. iDose-cCTA 148.6 ± 35 mGy cm; p value < 0.001), despite the use of different CM, we found higher mean attenuation values of the coronary arteries in IMR group compared to iDose4 (mean density in LAD: 491HU IMR-cCTA vs. 443HU iDose-cCTA; p = 0.03). We observed a significant higher value of SNR and CNR in study group due to a lower noise level. Qualitative analysis did not reveal any significant differences between the two groups (p = 0.23).
CONCLUSIONS: Low-dose cCTA study combined with IMR reconstruction allows to correctly evaluate coronary arteries disease, offering high-quality images and significant radiation dose exposure reduction (38%), as compared to standard cCTA protocol.