Cargando…

Impact of iterative reconstruction vs. filtered back projection on image quality in 320-slice CT coronary angiography: Insights from the CORE320 multicenter study

Iterative reconstruction has been shown to reduce image noise compared with traditional filtered back projection with quantum denoising software (FBP/QDS+) in CT imaging but few comparisons have been made in the same patients without the influence of interindividual factors. The objective of this st...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Fareed, Ahmed, Vavere, Andrea L., Zimmermann, Elke, Tanami, Yutaka, Steveson, Chloe, Matheson, Matthew, Paul, Narinder, Clouse, Melvin, Cox, Christopher, Lima, João A.C., Arbab-Zadeh, Armin
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Wolters Kluwer Health 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5728730/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29310329
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000008452
_version_ 1783286060834357248
author Fareed, Ahmed
Vavere, Andrea L.
Zimmermann, Elke
Tanami, Yutaka
Steveson, Chloe
Matheson, Matthew
Paul, Narinder
Clouse, Melvin
Cox, Christopher
Lima, João A.C.
Arbab-Zadeh, Armin
author_facet Fareed, Ahmed
Vavere, Andrea L.
Zimmermann, Elke
Tanami, Yutaka
Steveson, Chloe
Matheson, Matthew
Paul, Narinder
Clouse, Melvin
Cox, Christopher
Lima, João A.C.
Arbab-Zadeh, Armin
author_sort Fareed, Ahmed
collection PubMed
description Iterative reconstruction has been shown to reduce image noise compared with traditional filtered back projection with quantum denoising software (FBP/QDS+) in CT imaging but few comparisons have been made in the same patients without the influence of interindividual factors. The objective of this study was to investigate the impact of adaptive iterative dose reduction in 3-dimensional (AIDR 3D) and FBP/QDS+-based image reconstruction on image quality in the same patients. We randomly selected 100 patients enrolled in the coronary evaluation using 320-slice CT study who underwent CT coronary angiography using prospectively electrocardiogram triggered image acquisition with a 320-detector scanner. Both FBP/QDS+ and AIDR 3D reconstructions were performed using original data. Studies were blindly analyzed for image quality by measuring the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR). Image quality was assessed qualitatively using a 4-point scale. Median age was 63 years (interquartile range [IQR]: 56–71) and 72% were men, median body mass index 27 (IQR: 24–30) and median calcium score 222 (IQR: 11–644). For all regions of interest, mean image noise was lower for AIDR 3D vs. FBP/QDS+ (31.69 vs. 34.37, P ≤ .001). SNR and CNR were significantly higher for AIDR 3D vs. FBP/QDS+ (16.28 vs. 14.64, P < .001 and 19.21 vs. 17.06, P < .001, respectively). Subjective (qualitative) image quality scores were better using AIDR 3D vs. FBP/QDS+ with means of 1.6 and 1.74, respectively (P ≤ .001). Assessed in the same individuals, iterative reconstruction decreased image noise and raised SNR/CNR as well as subjective image quality scores compared with traditional FBP/QDS+ in 320-slice CT coronary angiography at standard radiation doses.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5728730
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Wolters Kluwer Health
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-57287302017-12-20 Impact of iterative reconstruction vs. filtered back projection on image quality in 320-slice CT coronary angiography: Insights from the CORE320 multicenter study Fareed, Ahmed Vavere, Andrea L. Zimmermann, Elke Tanami, Yutaka Steveson, Chloe Matheson, Matthew Paul, Narinder Clouse, Melvin Cox, Christopher Lima, João A.C. Arbab-Zadeh, Armin Medicine (Baltimore) 6800 Iterative reconstruction has been shown to reduce image noise compared with traditional filtered back projection with quantum denoising software (FBP/QDS+) in CT imaging but few comparisons have been made in the same patients without the influence of interindividual factors. The objective of this study was to investigate the impact of adaptive iterative dose reduction in 3-dimensional (AIDR 3D) and FBP/QDS+-based image reconstruction on image quality in the same patients. We randomly selected 100 patients enrolled in the coronary evaluation using 320-slice CT study who underwent CT coronary angiography using prospectively electrocardiogram triggered image acquisition with a 320-detector scanner. Both FBP/QDS+ and AIDR 3D reconstructions were performed using original data. Studies were blindly analyzed for image quality by measuring the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR). Image quality was assessed qualitatively using a 4-point scale. Median age was 63 years (interquartile range [IQR]: 56–71) and 72% were men, median body mass index 27 (IQR: 24–30) and median calcium score 222 (IQR: 11–644). For all regions of interest, mean image noise was lower for AIDR 3D vs. FBP/QDS+ (31.69 vs. 34.37, P ≤ .001). SNR and CNR were significantly higher for AIDR 3D vs. FBP/QDS+ (16.28 vs. 14.64, P < .001 and 19.21 vs. 17.06, P < .001, respectively). Subjective (qualitative) image quality scores were better using AIDR 3D vs. FBP/QDS+ with means of 1.6 and 1.74, respectively (P ≤ .001). Assessed in the same individuals, iterative reconstruction decreased image noise and raised SNR/CNR as well as subjective image quality scores compared with traditional FBP/QDS+ in 320-slice CT coronary angiography at standard radiation doses. Wolters Kluwer Health 2017-12-01 /pmc/articles/PMC5728730/ /pubmed/29310329 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000008452 Text en Copyright © 2017 the Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives License 4.0 (CCBY-NC-ND), where it is permissible to download and share the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be changed in any way or used commercially without permission from the journal. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0
spellingShingle 6800
Fareed, Ahmed
Vavere, Andrea L.
Zimmermann, Elke
Tanami, Yutaka
Steveson, Chloe
Matheson, Matthew
Paul, Narinder
Clouse, Melvin
Cox, Christopher
Lima, João A.C.
Arbab-Zadeh, Armin
Impact of iterative reconstruction vs. filtered back projection on image quality in 320-slice CT coronary angiography: Insights from the CORE320 multicenter study
title Impact of iterative reconstruction vs. filtered back projection on image quality in 320-slice CT coronary angiography: Insights from the CORE320 multicenter study
title_full Impact of iterative reconstruction vs. filtered back projection on image quality in 320-slice CT coronary angiography: Insights from the CORE320 multicenter study
title_fullStr Impact of iterative reconstruction vs. filtered back projection on image quality in 320-slice CT coronary angiography: Insights from the CORE320 multicenter study
title_full_unstemmed Impact of iterative reconstruction vs. filtered back projection on image quality in 320-slice CT coronary angiography: Insights from the CORE320 multicenter study
title_short Impact of iterative reconstruction vs. filtered back projection on image quality in 320-slice CT coronary angiography: Insights from the CORE320 multicenter study
title_sort impact of iterative reconstruction vs. filtered back projection on image quality in 320-slice ct coronary angiography: insights from the core320 multicenter study
topic 6800
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5728730/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29310329
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000008452
work_keys_str_mv AT fareedahmed impactofiterativereconstructionvsfilteredbackprojectiononimagequalityin320slicectcoronaryangiographyinsightsfromthecore320multicenterstudy
AT vavereandreal impactofiterativereconstructionvsfilteredbackprojectiononimagequalityin320slicectcoronaryangiographyinsightsfromthecore320multicenterstudy
AT zimmermannelke impactofiterativereconstructionvsfilteredbackprojectiononimagequalityin320slicectcoronaryangiographyinsightsfromthecore320multicenterstudy
AT tanamiyutaka impactofiterativereconstructionvsfilteredbackprojectiononimagequalityin320slicectcoronaryangiographyinsightsfromthecore320multicenterstudy
AT stevesonchloe impactofiterativereconstructionvsfilteredbackprojectiononimagequalityin320slicectcoronaryangiographyinsightsfromthecore320multicenterstudy
AT mathesonmatthew impactofiterativereconstructionvsfilteredbackprojectiononimagequalityin320slicectcoronaryangiographyinsightsfromthecore320multicenterstudy
AT paulnarinder impactofiterativereconstructionvsfilteredbackprojectiononimagequalityin320slicectcoronaryangiographyinsightsfromthecore320multicenterstudy
AT clousemelvin impactofiterativereconstructionvsfilteredbackprojectiononimagequalityin320slicectcoronaryangiographyinsightsfromthecore320multicenterstudy
AT coxchristopher impactofiterativereconstructionvsfilteredbackprojectiononimagequalityin320slicectcoronaryangiographyinsightsfromthecore320multicenterstudy
AT limajoaoac impactofiterativereconstructionvsfilteredbackprojectiononimagequalityin320slicectcoronaryangiographyinsightsfromthecore320multicenterstudy
AT arbabzadeharmin impactofiterativereconstructionvsfilteredbackprojectiononimagequalityin320slicectcoronaryangiographyinsightsfromthecore320multicenterstudy