1. Simulated 50 % radiation dose reduction in coronary CT angiography using adaptive iterative dose reduction in three-dimensions (AIDR3D)
- Author
-
Richard T. Mather, Andrew E. Arai, Marcus Y. Chen, Kurt Schultz, Steve W. Leung, Frank J. Rybicki, Michael L. Steigner, and Kanako K. Kumamaru
- Subjects
Adult ,Male ,medicine.medical_specialty ,Adolescent ,Image quality ,Contrast Media ,Iterative reconstruction ,Signal-To-Noise Ratio ,Coronary Angiography ,Radiation Dosage ,Reduction (complexity) ,Young Adult ,Imaging, Three-Dimensional ,Predictive Value of Tests ,Multidetector Computed Tomography ,medicine ,Humans ,Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and imaging ,Computer Simulation ,Coronary imaging ,Adaptive iterative dose reduction ,Computed tomography ,Cardiac imaging ,Aged ,Aged, 80 and over ,Observer Variation ,Original Paper ,medicine.diagnostic_test ,business.industry ,Phantoms, Imaging ,Radiation dose ,Angiography ,Reproducibility of Results ,Middle Aged ,Coronary Vessels ,Signal-to-noise ratio (imaging) ,Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging ,Image reconstruction ,Radiographic Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted ,Female ,Radiology ,Nuclear medicine ,business ,Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine ,Software - Abstract
To compare the image quality of coronary CT angiography (CTA) studies between standard filtered back projection (FBP) and adaptive iterative dose reduction in three-dimensions (AIDR3D) reconstruction using CT noise additional software to simulate reduced radiation exposure. Images from 93 consecutive clinical coronary CTA studies were processed utilizing standard FBP, FBP with 50 % simulated dose reduction (FBP50 %), and AIDR3D with simulated 50 % dose reduction (AIDR50 %). Signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) were measured within 5 regions-of-interest, and image quality for each reconstruction strategy was assessed by two independent readers using a 4-point scale. Compared to FBP, the SNR measured from the AIDR50 % images was similar or higher (airway: 38.3 ± 12.7 vs. 38.5 ± 14.5, p = 0.81, fat: 5.5 ± 1.9 vs. 5.4 ± 2.0, p = 0.20, muscle: 3.2 ± 1.2 vs. 3.1 ± 1.3, p = 0.38, aorta: 22.6 ± 9.4 vs. 20.2 ± 9.7, p
- Full Text
- View/download PDF