4.3 Article

The impact of a new model-based iterative reconstruction algorithm on prosthetic heart valve related artifacts at reduced radiation dose MDCT

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CARDIOVASCULAR IMAGING
Volume 30, Issue 4, Pages 785-793

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10554-014-0379-y

Keywords

Heart valve prosthesis; Computed tomography; Iterative reconstruction; Artifacts; Radiation dose

Funding

  1. Netherlands Heart Foundation [2009B014]
  2. Philips Healthcare

Ask authors/readers for more resources

To assess the impact of hybrid iterative reconstruction (IR) and novel model-based iterative reconstruction (IMR) and dose reduction on prosthetic heart valve (PHV) related artifacts and objective image quality. One transcatheter and two mechanical PHVs were embedded in diluted contrast-gel, inserted in an anthropomorphic phantom and imaged stationary with retrospectively ECG-gated computed tomography. Eight acquisitions were obtained of each PHV at 120 kV, 600 mAs (routine), 300 and 150 mAs (reduced dose). Data were reconstructed with filtered back projection (FBP), IR and IMR. Hypodense and hyperdense artifact volumes were quantified using two threshold filters. Signal-to-noise (SNR) and contrast-to-noise (CNR) ratios were calculated. Artifact volumes differed significantly between reconstruction algorithms for all PHVs (P < 0.005). Compared to FBP, IR decreased overall hypodense and hyperdense artifact volumes; at 150 mAs by 53 and 20 % (IR) and 67 and 23 % (IMR), respectively and significantly increased SNR and CNR at all doses (P < 0.012). Even at reduced dose, IMR resulted in higher image quality than routine dose FBP and IR. Iterative reconstruction and particularly IMR significantly reduce PHV-related artifacts and improve objective image quality in non-pulsatile conditions, even in reduced-dose images. Also, this study suggests that IMR allows for more radiation dose reduction in comparison to hybrid IR while maintaining high image quality.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available