Advertisement

Radiation dose reduction for coronary artery calcium scoring at 320-detector CT with adaptive iterative dose reduction 3D

  • Fuminari Tatsugami
  • Toru Higaki
  • Wataru Fukumoto
  • Yoko Kaichi
  • Chikako Fujioka
  • Masao Kiguchi
  • Hideya Yamamoto
  • Yasuki Kihara
  • Kazuo Awai
Original Paper

Abstract

To assess the possibility of reducing the radiation dose for coronary artery calcium (CAC) scoring by using adaptive iterative dose reduction 3D (AIDR 3D) on a 320-detector CT scanner. Fifty-four patients underwent routine- and low-dose CT for CAC scoring. Low-dose CT was performed at one-third of the tube current used for routine-dose CT. Routine-dose CT was reconstructed with filtered back projection (FBP) and low-dose CT was reconstructed with AIDR 3D. We compared the calculated Agatston-, volume-, and mass scores of these images. The overall percentage difference in the Agatston-, volume-, and mass scores between routine- and low-dose CT studies was 15.9, 11.6, and 12.6 %, respectively. There were no significant differences in the routine- and low-dose CT studies irrespective of the scoring algorithms applied. The CAC measurements of both imaging modalities were highly correlated with respect to the Agatston- (r = 0.996), volume- (r = 0.996), and mass score (r = 0.997; p < 0.001, all); the Bland–Altman limits of agreement scores were −37.4 to 51.4, −31.2 to 36.4 and −30.3 to 40.9 %, respectively, suggesting that AIDR 3D was a good alternative for FBP. The mean effective radiation dose for routine- and low-dose CT was 2.2 and 0.7 mSv, respectively. The use of AIDR 3D made it possible to reduce the radiation dose by 67 % for CAC scoring without impairing the quantification of coronary calcification.

Keywords

Coronary artery calcium Iterative reconstruction Dose reduction 320-detector CT scanner 

Notes

Conflict of interest

Dr. Kazuo Awai is currently receiving a research grant from Toshiba Medical Systems, Ltd. The remaining authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies, whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article.

References

  1. 1.
    Wexler L, Brundage B, Crouse J et al (1996) Coronary artery calcification: pathophysiology, epidemiology, imaging methods, and clinical implications. A statement for health professionals from the American Heart Association. Writing Group. Circulation 94:1175–1192CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    O’Rourke RA, Brundage BH, Froelicher VF et al (2000) American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Expert Consensus document on electron-beam computed tomography for the diagnosis and prognosis of coronary artery disease. Circulation 102:126–140CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Genders TS, Pugliese F, Mollet NR et al (2010) Incremental value of the CT coronary calcium score for the prediction of coronary artery disease. Eur Radiol 20:2331–2340CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Glodny B, Helmel B, Trieb T et al (2009) A method for calcium quantification by means of CT coronary angiography using 64-multidetector CT: very high correlation with Agatston and volume scores. Eur Radiol 19:1661–1668CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    van der Bijl N, de Bruin PW, Geleijns J et al (2010) Assessment of coronary artery calcium by using volumetric 320-row multi-detector computed tomography: comparison of 0.5 mm with 3.0 mm slice reconstructions. Int J Cardiovasc Imag 26:473–482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gervaise A, Osemont B, Lecocq S et al (2012) CT image quality improvement using adaptive iterative dose reduction with wide-volume acquisition on 320-detector CT. Eur Radiol 22(2):295–301CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hara AK, Paden RG, Silva AC et al (2009) Iterative reconstruction technique for reducing body radiation dose at CT: feasibility study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 193:764–771CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Liu YJ, Zhu PP, Chen B et al (2007) A new iterative algorithm to reconstruct the refractive index. Phys Med Biol 52:L5–13CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Agatston AS, Janowitz WR, Hildner FJ et al (1990) Quantification of coronary artery calcium using ultrafast computed tomography. J Am Coll Cardiol 15:827–832CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hong C, Becker CR, Schoepf UJ et al (2002) Coronary artery calcium: absolute quantification in nonenhanced and contrast-enhanced multi-detector row CT studies. Radiology 223:474–480CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hong C, Bae KT, Pilgram TK (2003) Coronary artery calcium: accuracy and reproducibility of measurements with multi-detector row CT–assessment of effects of different thresholds and quantification methods. Radiology 227:795–801CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hoffmann U, Siebert U, Bull-Stewart A et al (2006) Evidence for lower variability of coronary artery calcium mineral mass measurements by multi-detector computed tomography in a community-based cohort–consequences for progression studies. Eur J Radiol 57:396–402CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Budoff MJ, Kessler P, Gao YL et al (2008) The interscan variation of CT coronary artery calcification score: analysis of the calcium acetate renagel comparison (CARE)-2 study. Acad Radiol 15:58–61CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hausleiter J, Meyer T, Hermann F et al (2009) Estimated radiation dose associated with cardiac CT angiography. JAMA J Am Med Assoc 301:500–507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Horiguchi J, Matsuura N, Yamamoto H et al (2009) Coronary artery calcium scoring on low-dose prospective electrocardiographically-triggered 64-slice CT. Academic radiology 16:187–193CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mahnken AH, Wildberger JE, Simon J et al (2003) Detection of coronary calcifications: feasibility of dose reduction with a body weight-adapted examination protocol. AJR Am J Roentgenol 181:533–538CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Newton TD, Mehrez H, Wong K et al (2011) Radiation dose threshold for coronary artery calcium score with MDCT: how low can you go? Eur Radiol 21:2121–2129CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Shemesh J, Evron R, Koren-Morag N et al (2005) Coronary artery calcium measurement with multi-detector row CT and low radiation dose: comparison between 55 and 165 mAs. Radiology 236:810–814CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    McNitt-Gray MF (2002) AAPM/RSNA Physics Tutorial for Residents: Topics in CT. Radiation dose in CT. Radiographics 22:1541–1553CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Takahashi N, Bae KT (2003) Quantification of coronary artery calcium with multi-detector row CT: assessing interscan variability with different tube currents pilot study. Radiology 228:101–106CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bielak LF, Kaufmann RB, Moll PP et al (1994) Small lesions in the heart identified at electron beam CT: calcification or noise? Radiology 192:631–636CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Juri H, Matsuki M, Itou Y et al (2013) Initial experience with adaptive iterative dose reduction 3D to reduce radiation dose in computed tomographic urography. J Comput Assist Tomogr 37:52–57CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Tomizawa N, Nojo T, Akahane M et al (2012) AdaptiveIterative Dose Reduction in coronary CT angiography using 320-row CT: assessment of radiation dose reduction and image quality. J cardiovasc Comput Tomogr 6:318–324CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Chen MY, Steigner ML, Leung SW et al (2013) Simulated 50% radiation dose reduction in coronary CT angiography using adaptive iterative dose reduction in three-dimensions (AIDR3D). Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 29:1167–1175CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    van Osch JA, Mouden M, van Dalen JA et al (2014) Influence of iterative image reconstruction on CT-based calcium score measurements. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 30:961–967PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kurata A, Dharampal A, Dedic A et al (2013) Impact of iterative reconstruction on CT coronary calcium quantification. Eur Radiol 23:3246–3252CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    McCollough CH, Ulzheimer S, Halliburton SS et al (2007) Coronary artery calcium: a multi-institutional, multimanufacturer international standard for quantification at cardiac CT. Radiology 243:527–538CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Horiguchi J, Matsuura N, Yamamoto H et al (2009) Effect of heart rate and body mass index on the interscan and interobserver variability of coronary artery calcium scoring at prospective ECG-triggered 64-slice CT. Korean J Radiol 10:340–346CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Matsuura N, Horiguchi J, Yamamoto H et al (2008) Optimal cardiac phase for coronary artery calcium scoring on single-source 64-MDCT scanner: least interscan variability and least motion artifacts. AJR Am J Roentgenol 190:1561–1568CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Achenbach S, Ropers D, Mohlenkamp S et al (2001) Variability of repeated coronary artery calcium measurements by electron beam tomography. Am J Cardiol 87:210–213CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Devries S, Wolfkiel C, Shah V et al (1995) Reproducibility of the measurement of coronary calcium with ultrafast computed tomography. Am J Cardiol 75:973–975CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Fuminari Tatsugami
    • 1
  • Toru Higaki
    • 1
  • Wataru Fukumoto
    • 1
  • Yoko Kaichi
    • 1
  • Chikako Fujioka
    • 2
  • Masao Kiguchi
    • 2
  • Hideya Yamamoto
    • 3
  • Yasuki Kihara
    • 3
  • Kazuo Awai
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Diagnostic RadiologyHiroshima UniversityHiroshimaJapan
  2. 2.Department of RadiologyHiroshima UniversityHiroshimaJapan
  3. 3.Department of Cardiovascular MedicineHiroshima UniversityHiroshimaJapan

Personalised recommendations