全模型迭代重建算法（IMR）在“双低”冠状动脉CTA成像中#br#
应用价值的探讨

Abstract
Figure/Table
References (18)
Related Citation (15)

Download: PDF (0 KB) HTML (1 KB)
Export: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)

Abstract Objective: To investigate the clinical value of IMR technique in 256 slice prospective coronary CTA with low dose and low Iodine load. Methods: One hundred patients who would perform coronary CTA were enrolled and the patients were divided into two groups randomly. All the patients were performed prospective CTA. Patients in group A were performed CTA by using normal tube voltage(120 kV), dose right index(DRI)=15 was considered to be currents and iDose4 reconstruction. Patients in group B were performed CTA by using low tube voltage(100 kV), DRI=11 was considered to be currents and IMR reconstruction. The injection protocols of group A and group B were 0.8 mL/kg and 0.6 mL/kg, respectively. The injection time was 12 seconds. Quantitative measurements of CT value, image noise, signal-to-noise(SNR) and contrast-to-noise(CNR) were measured in each group. t-test was used for comparisons of objective evaluation, indices(noise, SNR, CNR), radiation dose(CTDIvol, DLP, ED) and Iodine load between the two groups. Mann-Whitney U test was used for comparisons of subjective evaluation of IQ between the two groups. A level of P＜0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: There were significant differences in SD between group A(34.3±4.3) HU and group B(23.4±2.8) HU(t=14.977, P=0.000). There were significant differences in SNR between group A(11.9±1.9) and group B(16.3±2.2)(t=-10.713, P=0.000). There were significant differences in CNR between group A(15.1±2.3) and group B(21.1±2.7)(t=-12.083, P=0.000). Group B showed the better objective data. Compared with group A, there were significant differences in subjective noise and acceptability of images(U=951.000, 934.000, P=0.008, 0.005). There were no significant differences in image contrast and image sharpness(U=1 233.000, 1 233.500, P=0.884, 0.888). The effective dose(ED) of group B (0.94±0.23) mSv was 39% lower than that of group A (1.53±0.32) mSv. The Iodine load of group B (15.1±2.4) g was 25% lower than that of group A (20.1±2.5) g. Conclusion: Compared with iDose4, using 256 MDCT, iterative model reconstruction technique can provide 39% ED and 25% Iodine load reduction, while the images could still satisfy the requirement of diagnosis.

Key words： Coronary disease Radiation dosage Tomography, spiral computed Coronary angiography

Received: 11 May 2017

PACS:	Ｒ543.3
	R814.42
	Ｒ814.43

	Service

	E-mail this article
	Add to my bookshelf
	Add to citation manager
	E-mail Alert
	RSS
	Articles by authors
	GAO Si-zhe1
	MA Yue1
	HOU Yang1
	ZHANG Xiao-juan2

Cite this article:

GAO Si-zhe1,MA Yue1,HOU Yang1, et al. Investigation of iterative model reconstruction in coronary CTA with low dose and low Iodine load[J]. JOURNAL OF CHINA MEDICAL IMAGING, 2018, 29(3): 177-181.

URL:

http://www.jccmi.com.cn/EN/ OR http://www.jccmi.com.cn/EN/Y2018/V29/I3/177

[1]侯阳，于兵，郭启勇，等. 迭代重建对前置门控冠状动脉CT图像质量及辐射剂量的影响[J]. 中华放射学杂志，2013，47（4）：305-309.
[2]蒋骏，黄美萍，雷益，等. 全模型迭代重建技术在心脏CT成像中应用的实验研究[J]. 中华放射学杂志，2015，49（6）：473-477.
[3]Hou Y, Yue Y, Guo W, et al. Prospectively versus retrospectively ECG-gated 256-slice coronary CT angiography: image quality and radiation dose over expanded heart rates[J]. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging, 2012, 28(1): 153-162.
[4]余美，马跃，王玉科，等. 不同低对比剂注射方案对冠状动脉CTA图像质量影响的初步研究[J]. 中国临床医学影像杂志，2015，26（11）：779-783.
[5]Zhang C, Zhang Z, Yan Z, et al. 320-row CT coronary angiography: effect of 100 kV tube voltages on image quality, contrast volume, and radiation dose[J]. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging, 2011, 27(7): 1059-1068.
[6]Menzel HSH, Teunen D. European guidelines for quality criteria for computed tomography[M]. Luxembourg: European Commission, 2000.
[7]徐超，杨琳，于薇，等. 迭代重建在双源CT冠状动脉成像中的应用[J]. 中国医学影像技术，2012，28（1）：168-171.
[8]夏宾，杨学华，高建波，等. ＦlａｓｈＣＴ低管电压结合迭代重建技术在超重患者冠状动脉成像中的应用[J]. 中国医学影像技术，2012，28（5）：1006-1010.
[9]Wang R, Schoepf UJ, Wu R, et al. Image quality and radiation dose of low dose coronary CT angiography in obese patients: Sinogram affirmed iterative reconstruction versus filtered back projection[J]. Eur J Radiol, 2012, 81(11): 3141-3145.
[10]Funama Y, Taguchi K, Utsunomiya D, et al. Combination of a low-tube-voltage technique with hybrid iterative reconstruction(iDose) algorithm at coronary computed tomographic angiography[J]. J Comput Assist Tomogr, 2011, 35(4): 480-485.
[11]Chang W, Lee JM, Lee K, et al． Assessment of a model-based, iterative reconstruction algorithm(MBIR) regarding image quality and dose reduction in liver computed tomography[J]． Invest Radiol, 2013, 48(8): 598-606．
[12]Mehta D, Thompson R, Morton T, et al. Iterative model reconstruction: simultaneously lowered computed tomography radiation dose and improved image quality[J]. Med Phys Int, 2013, 17(2): 147-155.
[13]Nakaura T, Iyama Y, Kidoh M, et al. Comparison of iterative model, hybrid iterative, and filtered back projection reconstruction techniques in low-dose brain CT: impact of thin-slice imaging[J]. Neuroradiology, 2016, 58(3): 245-251.
[14]Park SB, Kim YS, Lee JB, et al. Knowledge-based iterative model reconstruction(IMR) algorithm in ultralow-dose CT for evaluation of urolithiasis: evaluation of radiation dose reduction, image quality, and diagnostic performance[J]. Abdom Imaging, 2015, 40(8): 3137-3146.
[15]Park CH, Lee J, Oh C, et al. The feasibility of sub-millisievert coronary CT angiography with low tube voltage, prospective ECG gating, and a knowledge-based iterative model reconstruction algorithm[J]. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging, 2015, 31(Suppl 2): 197-203.
[16]Datrice NM, Langan RC, Ripley RT, et al. Operative management for recurrent and metastatic adrenocortical carcinoma[J]. J Surg Oncol, 2012, 105(7): 709-713.
[17]McLean K, Lilienfeld H, Caracciolo JT, et al. Management of solated adrenal lesions in cancer patients[J]. Can Control, 2011, 18(2): 113-126.
[18]Bae KT. Intravenous contrast medium administration and scan timing at CT: considerations and approaches[J]. Radiology, 2010, 256(1): 32-61.