Evidence Hub

Iterative reconstruction and individualized automatic tube current selection reduce radiation dose while maintaining image quality in 320-multidetector computed tomography coronary angiography

Williams MC, Weir NW, Mirsadraee S, Millar F, Baird A, Minns F, Uren NG, McKillop G et al.

Clinical radiology, 2013

942 participants

Abstract

AIM: To assess the effect of two iterative reconstruction algorithms (AIDR and AIDR3D) and individualized automatic tube current selection on radiation dose and image quality in computed tomography coronary angiography (CTCA).

MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a single-centre cohort study, 942 patients underwent electrocardiogram-gated CTCA using a 320-multidetector CT system. Images from group 1 (n = 228) were reconstructed with a filtered back projection algorithm (Quantum Denoising Software, QDS+). Iterative reconstruction was used for group 2 (AIDR, n = 379) and group 3 (AIDR3D, n = 335). Tube current was selected based on body mass index (BMI) for groups 1 and 2, and selected automatically based on scout image attenuation for group 3. Subjective image quality was graded on a four-point scale (1 = excellent, 4 = non-diagnostic).

RESULTS: There were no differences in age (p = 0.975), body mass index (p = 0.435), or heart rate (p = 0.746) between the groups. Image quality improved with iterative reconstruction and automatic tube current selection [1.3 (95% confidence intervals (CI): 1.2-1.4), 1.2 (1.1-1.2) and 1.1 (1-1.2) respectively; p < 0.001] and radiation dose decreased [274 (260-290), 242 (230-253) and 168 (156-180) mGy cm, respectively; p < 0.001].

CONCLUSION: The application of the latest iterative reconstruction algorithm and individualized automatic tube current selection can substantially reduce radiation dose whilst improving image quality in CTCA.

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 942 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free