4.4 Article

Iterative image reconstruction techniques: Applications for cardiac CT

Journal

JOURNAL OF CARDIOVASCULAR COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY
Volume 5, Issue 4, Pages 225-230

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcct.2011.05.002

Keywords

Iterative reconstruction; Filtered back-projection; Coronary CT angiography; Image noise; Radiation dose; Cardiac CT

Funding

  1. Bayer
  2. Bracco
  3. General Electric
  4. Medrad
  5. Siemens

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BACKGROUND: Traditional limitations of cardiac CT are related to image noise, blooming artifacts from calcifications and stents, and radiation exposure. We evaluated whether these limitations can be ameliorated by the use of iterative reconstruction in image space (IRIS) instead of traditional filtered back projection (FBP) image reconstruction techniques. METHODS: We compared image reconstruction with the use of IRIS with traditional FBP for their effect on image quality, noise, volume of heavy coronary artery calcifications, and stems as a measure of blooming artifacts, and radiation dose at cardiac CT. The radiation dose comparison was performed as a matched pair analysis, whereas all other comparisons were performed within the same group of patients. RESULTS: The subjective image quality of IRIS reconstructions was rated higher than FBP reconstructions. Image noise was lower with IRIS than with FBP. The volume of stems and heavy coronary artery calcifications measured lower in IRIS reconstructed series compared with FBR Similar levels of image noise were achieved with 80/100 kVp of tube voltage with IRIS compared with 120 kVp and FBP, resulting in a 62% reduction in effective dose. CONCLUSION: Our preliminary experiences suggest that IRIS incrementally improves the CT evaluation of coronary arteries, especially in challenging scenarios. Substantial radiation reduction seems feasible without associated increases in image noise. (C) 2011 Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available