TY - JOUR
T1 - Ultra-low-dose computed tomographic angiography with model-based iterative reconstruction compared with standard-dose imaging after endovascular aneurysm repair
T2 - a prospective pilot study
AU - Naidu, Sailen G.
AU - Kriegshauser, J. Scott
AU - Paden, Robert G.
AU - He, Miao
AU - Wu, Qing
AU - Hara, Amy K.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2014, Springer Science+Business Media New York.
PY - 2014/12
Y1 - 2014/12
N2 - Methods: This prospective study evaluated 20 men undergoing surveillance-enhanced computed tomography after endovascular aneurysm repair. All patients underwent standard-dose and ultra-low-dose venous phase imaging; images were compared after reconstruction with filtered back projection, adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction, and model-based iterative reconstruction. Objective measures of aortic contrast attenuation and image noise were averaged. Images were subjectively assessed (1 = worst, 5 = best) for diagnostic confidence, image noise, and vessel sharpness. Aneurysm sac diameter and endoleak detection were compared.Results: Quantitative image noise was 26% less with ultra-low-dose model-based iterative reconstruction than with standard-dose adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction and 58% less than with ultra-low-dose adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction. Average subjective noise scores were not different between ultra-low-dose model-based iterative reconstruction and standard-dose adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction (3.8 vs. 4.0, P = .25). Subjective scores for diagnostic confidence were better with standard-dose adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction than with ultra-low-dose model-based iterative reconstruction (4.4 vs. 4.0, P = .002). Vessel sharpness was decreased with ultra-low-dose model-based iterative reconstruction compared with standard-dose adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction (3.3 vs. 4.1, P < .0001). Ultra-low-dose model-based iterative reconstruction and standard-dose adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction aneurysm sac diameters were not significantly different (4.9 vs. 4.9 cm); concordance for the presence of endoleak was 100% (P < .001).Conclusion: Compared with a standard-dose technique, an ultra-low-dose model-based iterative reconstruction protocol provides comparable image quality and diagnostic assessment at a 73% lower radiation dose.Purpose: An ultra-low-dose radiation protocol reconstructed with model-based iterative reconstruction was compared with our standard-dose protocol.
AB - Methods: This prospective study evaluated 20 men undergoing surveillance-enhanced computed tomography after endovascular aneurysm repair. All patients underwent standard-dose and ultra-low-dose venous phase imaging; images were compared after reconstruction with filtered back projection, adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction, and model-based iterative reconstruction. Objective measures of aortic contrast attenuation and image noise were averaged. Images were subjectively assessed (1 = worst, 5 = best) for diagnostic confidence, image noise, and vessel sharpness. Aneurysm sac diameter and endoleak detection were compared.Results: Quantitative image noise was 26% less with ultra-low-dose model-based iterative reconstruction than with standard-dose adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction and 58% less than with ultra-low-dose adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction. Average subjective noise scores were not different between ultra-low-dose model-based iterative reconstruction and standard-dose adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction (3.8 vs. 4.0, P = .25). Subjective scores for diagnostic confidence were better with standard-dose adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction than with ultra-low-dose model-based iterative reconstruction (4.4 vs. 4.0, P = .002). Vessel sharpness was decreased with ultra-low-dose model-based iterative reconstruction compared with standard-dose adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction (3.3 vs. 4.1, P < .0001). Ultra-low-dose model-based iterative reconstruction and standard-dose adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction aneurysm sac diameters were not significantly different (4.9 vs. 4.9 cm); concordance for the presence of endoleak was 100% (P < .001).Conclusion: Compared with a standard-dose technique, an ultra-low-dose model-based iterative reconstruction protocol provides comparable image quality and diagnostic assessment at a 73% lower radiation dose.Purpose: An ultra-low-dose radiation protocol reconstructed with model-based iterative reconstruction was compared with our standard-dose protocol.
KW - Computed tomographic angiography
KW - Dose reduction
KW - Iterative reconstruction
KW - Model-based iterative reconstruction
KW - Post-endovascular aneurysm repair computed tomography
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84937965713&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84937965713&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1007/s00261-014-0166-1
DO - 10.1007/s00261-014-0166-1
M3 - Article
C2 - 24859850
AN - SCOPUS:84937965713
SN - 0942-8925
VL - 39
SP - 1297
EP - 1303
JO - Abdominal Imaging
JF - Abdominal Imaging
IS - 6
ER -