Skip to main content
Top
Published in: European Radiology 8/2017

01-08-2017 | Emergency Radiology

Emergency assessment of patients with acute abdominal pain using low-dose CT with iterative reconstruction: a comparative study

Authors: Pierre-Alexandre Poletti, Minerva Becker, Christoph D. Becker, Alice Halfon Poletti, Olivier T. Rutschmann, Habib Zaidi, Thomas Perneger, Alexandra Platon

Published in: European Radiology | Issue 8/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Objectives

To determine if radiation dose delivered by contrast-enhanced CT (CECT) for acute abdominal pain can be reduced to the dose administered in abdominal radiography (<2.5 mSv) using low-dose CT (LDCT) with iterative reconstruction algorithms.

Methods

One hundred and fifty-one consecutive patients requiring CECT for acute abdominal pain were included, and their body mass index (BMI) was calculated. CECT was immediately followed by LDCT. LDCT series was processed using 1) 40% iterative reconstruction algorithm blended with filtered back projection (LDCT-IR-FBP) and 2) model-based iterative reconstruction algorithm (LDCT-MBIR). LDCT-IR-FBP and LDCT-MBIR images were reviewed independently by two board-certified radiologists (Raters 1 and 2).

Results

Abdominal pathology was revealed on CECT in 120 (79%) patients. In those with BMI <30, accuracies for correct diagnosis by Rater 1 with LDCT-IR-FBP and LDCT-MBIR, when compared to CECT, were 95.4% (104/109) and 99% (108/109), respectively, and 92.7% (101/109) and 100% (109/109) for Rater 2. In patients with BMI ≥30, accuracies with LDCT-IR-FBP and LDCT-MBIR were 88.1% (37/42) and 90.5% (38/42) for Rater 1 and 78.6% (33/42) and 92.9% (39/42) for Rater 2.

Conclusions

The radiation dose delivered by CT to non-obese patients with acute abdominal pain can be safely reduced to levels close to standard radiography using LDCT-MBIR.

Key Points

LDCT-MBIR (<2.5 mSv) can be used to assess acute abdominal pain.
LDCT-MBIR (<2.5 mSv) cannot safely assess acute abdominal pain in obese patients.
LDCT-IR-FBP (<2.5 mSv) cannot safely assess patients with acute abdominal pain.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Rao VM, Levin DC, Parker L, Frangos AJ, Sunshine JH (2011) Trends in utilization rates of the various imaging modalities in emergency departments: nationwide Medicare data from 2000 to 2008. J Am Coll Radiol 8:706–709CrossRefPubMed Rao VM, Levin DC, Parker L, Frangos AJ, Sunshine JH (2011) Trends in utilization rates of the various imaging modalities in emergency departments: nationwide Medicare data from 2000 to 2008. J Am Coll Radiol 8:706–709CrossRefPubMed
2.
go back to reference Larson DB, Johnson LW, Schnell BM, Salisbury SR, Forman HP (2011) National trends in CT use in the emergency department: 1995-2007. Radiology 258:164–173CrossRefPubMed Larson DB, Johnson LW, Schnell BM, Salisbury SR, Forman HP (2011) National trends in CT use in the emergency department: 1995-2007. Radiology 258:164–173CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference Brenner DJ, Hall EJ (2007) Computed tomography--an increasing source of radiation exposure. N Engl J Med 357:2277–2284CrossRefPubMed Brenner DJ, Hall EJ (2007) Computed tomography--an increasing source of radiation exposure. N Engl J Med 357:2277–2284CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Roch P, Aubert B (2013) French diagnostic reference levels in diagnostic radiology, computed tomography and nuclear medicine: 2004-2008 review. Radiat Prot Dosim 154:52–75CrossRef Roch P, Aubert B (2013) French diagnostic reference levels in diagnostic radiology, computed tomography and nuclear medicine: 2004-2008 review. Radiat Prot Dosim 154:52–75CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Wall B, Haylock R, Jansen J, Hillier M, Hart D, Shrimpton P (2011) Radiation risks from medical x-ray examinations as a function of the age and sex of the patient. HPA Wall B, Haylock R, Jansen J, Hillier M, Hart D, Shrimpton P (2011) Radiation risks from medical x-ray examinations as a function of the age and sex of the patient. HPA
7.
go back to reference Alshamari M, Norrman E, Geijer M, Jansson K, Geijer H (2016) Diagnostic accuracy of low-dose CT compared with abdominal radiography in non-traumatic acute abdominal pain: prospective study and systematic review. Eur Radiol 26:1766–1774CrossRefPubMed Alshamari M, Norrman E, Geijer M, Jansson K, Geijer H (2016) Diagnostic accuracy of low-dose CT compared with abdominal radiography in non-traumatic acute abdominal pain: prospective study and systematic review. Eur Radiol 26:1766–1774CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Tack D, Sourtzis S, Delpierre I, de Maertelaer V, Gevenois PA (2003) Low-dose unenhanced multidetector CT of patients with suspected renal colic. AJR Am J Roentgenol 180:305–311CrossRefPubMed Tack D, Sourtzis S, Delpierre I, de Maertelaer V, Gevenois PA (2003) Low-dose unenhanced multidetector CT of patients with suspected renal colic. AJR Am J Roentgenol 180:305–311CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Fontarensky M, Alfidja A, Perignon R et al (2015) Reduced radiation dose with model-based iterative reconstruction versus standard dose with adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction in abdominal CT for diagnosis of acute renal colic. Radiology 276:156–166CrossRefPubMed Fontarensky M, Alfidja A, Perignon R et al (2015) Reduced radiation dose with model-based iterative reconstruction versus standard dose with adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction in abdominal CT for diagnosis of acute renal colic. Radiology 276:156–166CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Poletti PA, Platon A, Rutschmann OT, Schmidlin FR, Iselin CE, Becker CD (2007) Low-dose versus standard-dose CT protocol in patients with clinically suspected renal colic. AJR Am J Roentgenol 188:927–933CrossRefPubMed Poletti PA, Platon A, Rutschmann OT, Schmidlin FR, Iselin CE, Becker CD (2007) Low-dose versus standard-dose CT protocol in patients with clinically suspected renal colic. AJR Am J Roentgenol 188:927–933CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Platon A, Jlassi H, Rutschmann OT et al (2009) Evaluation of a low-dose CT protocol with oral contrast for assessment of acute appendicitis. Eur Radiol 19:446–454CrossRefPubMed Platon A, Jlassi H, Rutschmann OT et al (2009) Evaluation of a low-dose CT protocol with oral contrast for assessment of acute appendicitis. Eur Radiol 19:446–454CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Kim K, Kim YH, Kim SY et al (2012) Low-dose abdominal CT for evaluating suspected appendicitis. N Engl J Med 366:1596–1605CrossRefPubMed Kim K, Kim YH, Kim SY et al (2012) Low-dose abdominal CT for evaluating suspected appendicitis. N Engl J Med 366:1596–1605CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Kim SH, Yoon JH, Lee JH et al (2015) Low-dose CT for patients with clinically suspected acute appendicitis: optimal strength of sinogram affirmed iterative reconstruction for image quality and diagnostic performance. Acta Radiol 56:899–907CrossRefPubMed Kim SH, Yoon JH, Lee JH et al (2015) Low-dose CT for patients with clinically suspected acute appendicitis: optimal strength of sinogram affirmed iterative reconstruction for image quality and diagnostic performance. Acta Radiol 56:899–907CrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference Desai GS, Thabet A, Elias AY, Sahani DV (2013) Comparative assessment of three image reconstruction techniques for image quality and radiation dose in patients undergoing abdominopelvic multidetector CT examinations. Br J Radiol 86:20120161CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Desai GS, Thabet A, Elias AY, Sahani DV (2013) Comparative assessment of three image reconstruction techniques for image quality and radiation dose in patients undergoing abdominopelvic multidetector CT examinations. Br J Radiol 86:20120161CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
15.
go back to reference McCollough CH, Bruesewitz MR, Kofler JM Jr (2006) CT dose reduction and dose management tools: overview of available options. Radiographics 26:503–512CrossRefPubMed McCollough CH, Bruesewitz MR, Kofler JM Jr (2006) CT dose reduction and dose management tools: overview of available options. Radiographics 26:503–512CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference Patino M, Fuentes JM, Hayano K, Kambadakone AR, Uyeda JW, Sahani DV (2015) A quantitative comparison of noise reduction across five commercial (hybrid and model-based) iterative reconstruction techniques: an anthropomorphic phantom study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 204:W176–183CrossRefPubMed Patino M, Fuentes JM, Hayano K, Kambadakone AR, Uyeda JW, Sahani DV (2015) A quantitative comparison of noise reduction across five commercial (hybrid and model-based) iterative reconstruction techniques: an anthropomorphic phantom study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 204:W176–183CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference Laqmani A, Veldhoen S, Dulz S et al (2016) Reduced-dose abdominopelvic CT using hybrid iterative reconstruction in suspected left-sided colonic diverticulitis. Eur Radiol 26:216–224CrossRefPubMed Laqmani A, Veldhoen S, Dulz S et al (2016) Reduced-dose abdominopelvic CT using hybrid iterative reconstruction in suspected left-sided colonic diverticulitis. Eur Radiol 26:216–224CrossRefPubMed
18.
go back to reference Schindera ST, Diedrichsen L, Muller HC et al (2011) Iterative reconstruction algorithm for abdominal multidetector CT at different tube voltages: assessment of diagnostic accuracy, image quality, and radiation dose in a phantom study. Radiology 260:454–462CrossRefPubMed Schindera ST, Diedrichsen L, Muller HC et al (2011) Iterative reconstruction algorithm for abdominal multidetector CT at different tube voltages: assessment of diagnostic accuracy, image quality, and radiation dose in a phantom study. Radiology 260:454–462CrossRefPubMed
20.
go back to reference Yu Z, Thibault JB, Bouman CA, Sauer KD, Hsieh J (2011) Fast model-based X-ray CT reconstruction using spatially nonhomogeneous ICD optimization. IEEE Trans Image Process 20:161–175CrossRefPubMed Yu Z, Thibault JB, Bouman CA, Sauer KD, Hsieh J (2011) Fast model-based X-ray CT reconstruction using spatially nonhomogeneous ICD optimization. IEEE Trans Image Process 20:161–175CrossRefPubMed
21.
go back to reference Millon D, Vlassenbroek A, Van Maanen AG, Cambier SE, Coche EE (2016) Low contrast detectability and spatial resolution with model-based Iterative reconstructions of MDCT images: a phantom and cadaveric study. Eur Radiol Millon D, Vlassenbroek A, Van Maanen AG, Cambier SE, Coche EE (2016) Low contrast detectability and spatial resolution with model-based Iterative reconstructions of MDCT images: a phantom and cadaveric study. Eur Radiol
22.
go back to reference Herin E, Gardavaud F, Chiaradia M et al (2015) Use of Model-Based Iterative Reconstruction (MBIR) in reduced-dose CT for routine follow-up of patients with malignant lymphoma: dose savings, image quality and phantom study. Eur Radiol 25:2362–2370CrossRefPubMed Herin E, Gardavaud F, Chiaradia M et al (2015) Use of Model-Based Iterative Reconstruction (MBIR) in reduced-dose CT for routine follow-up of patients with malignant lymphoma: dose savings, image quality and phantom study. Eur Radiol 25:2362–2370CrossRefPubMed
23.
go back to reference Buls N, Van Gompel G, Van Cauteren T et al (2015) Contrast agent and radiation dose reduction in abdominal CT by a combination of low tube voltage and advanced image reconstruction algorithms. Eur Radiol 25:1023–1031CrossRefPubMed Buls N, Van Gompel G, Van Cauteren T et al (2015) Contrast agent and radiation dose reduction in abdominal CT by a combination of low tube voltage and advanced image reconstruction algorithms. Eur Radiol 25:1023–1031CrossRefPubMed
24.
go back to reference Nelson RC, Feuerlein S, Boll DT (2011) New iterative reconstruction techniques for cardiovascular computed tomography: how do they work, and what are the advantages and disadvantages? J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr 5:286–292CrossRefPubMed Nelson RC, Feuerlein S, Boll DT (2011) New iterative reconstruction techniques for cardiovascular computed tomography: how do they work, and what are the advantages and disadvantages? J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr 5:286–292CrossRefPubMed
25.
go back to reference Geyer LL, Schoepf UJ, Meinel FG et al (2015) State of the art: iterative CT reconstruction techniques. Radiology 276:339–357CrossRefPubMed Geyer LL, Schoepf UJ, Meinel FG et al (2015) State of the art: iterative CT reconstruction techniques. Radiology 276:339–357CrossRefPubMed
27.
go back to reference Hara AK, Paden RG, Silva AC, Kujak JL, Lawder HJ, Pavlicek W (2009) Iterative reconstruction technique for reducing body radiation dose at CT: feasibility study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 193:764–771CrossRefPubMed Hara AK, Paden RG, Silva AC, Kujak JL, Lawder HJ, Pavlicek W (2009) Iterative reconstruction technique for reducing body radiation dose at CT: feasibility study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 193:764–771CrossRefPubMed
28.
go back to reference Agresti A (1990) Categorical data analysis. John Wiley & sons, pp 35–361 Agresti A (1990) Categorical data analysis. John Wiley & sons, pp 35–361
29.
go back to reference Khawaja RD, Singh S, Blake M et al (2015) Ultralow-dose abdominal computed tomography: comparison of 2 iterative reconstruction techniques in a prospective clinical study. J Comput Assist Tomogr 39:489–498CrossRefPubMed Khawaja RD, Singh S, Blake M et al (2015) Ultralow-dose abdominal computed tomography: comparison of 2 iterative reconstruction techniques in a prospective clinical study. J Comput Assist Tomogr 39:489–498CrossRefPubMed
30.
go back to reference Padole A, Singh S, Lira D et al (2015) Assessment of filtered back projection, adaptive statistical, and model-based iterative reconstruction for reduced dose abdominal computed tomography. J Comput Assist Tomogr 39:462–467CrossRefPubMed Padole A, Singh S, Lira D et al (2015) Assessment of filtered back projection, adaptive statistical, and model-based iterative reconstruction for reduced dose abdominal computed tomography. J Comput Assist Tomogr 39:462–467CrossRefPubMed
31.
go back to reference Nino-Murcia M, Jeffrey RB Jr (2001) Imaging the patient with right upper quadrant pain. Semin Roentgenol 36:81–91CrossRefPubMed Nino-Murcia M, Jeffrey RB Jr (2001) Imaging the patient with right upper quadrant pain. Semin Roentgenol 36:81–91CrossRefPubMed
32.
go back to reference Watanabe Y, Nagayama M, Okumura A et al (2007) MR imaging of acute biliary disorders. Radiographics 27:477–495CrossRefPubMed Watanabe Y, Nagayama M, Okumura A et al (2007) MR imaging of acute biliary disorders. Radiographics 27:477–495CrossRefPubMed
33.
go back to reference Pickhardt PJ, Lubner MG, Kim DH et al (2012) Abdominal CT with model-based iterative reconstruction (MBIR): initial results of a prospective trial comparing ultralow-dose with standard-dose imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 199:1266–1274CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Pickhardt PJ, Lubner MG, Kim DH et al (2012) Abdominal CT with model-based iterative reconstruction (MBIR): initial results of a prospective trial comparing ultralow-dose with standard-dose imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 199:1266–1274CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
34.
go back to reference Deak Z, Grimm JM, Treitl M et al (2013) Filtered back projection, adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction, and a model-based iterative reconstruction in abdominal CT: an experimental clinical study. Radiology 266:197–206CrossRefPubMed Deak Z, Grimm JM, Treitl M et al (2013) Filtered back projection, adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction, and a model-based iterative reconstruction in abdominal CT: an experimental clinical study. Radiology 266:197–206CrossRefPubMed
35.
go back to reference Rosen MP, Siewert B, Sands DZ, Bromberg R, Edlow J, Raptopoulos V (2003) Value of abdominal CT in the emergency department for patients with abdominal pain. Eur Radiol 13:418–424PubMed Rosen MP, Siewert B, Sands DZ, Bromberg R, Edlow J, Raptopoulos V (2003) Value of abdominal CT in the emergency department for patients with abdominal pain. Eur Radiol 13:418–424PubMed
36.
go back to reference Nakamoto A, Kim T, Hori M et al (2015) Clinical evaluation of image quality and radiation dose reduction in upper abdominal computed tomography using model-based iterative reconstruction; comparison with filtered back projection and adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction. Eur J Radiol Nakamoto A, Kim T, Hori M et al (2015) Clinical evaluation of image quality and radiation dose reduction in upper abdominal computed tomography using model-based iterative reconstruction; comparison with filtered back projection and adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction. Eur J Radiol
37.
go back to reference Shuman WP, Chan KT, Busey JM et al (2014) Standard and reduced radiation dose liver CT images: adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction versus model-based iterative reconstruction-comparison of findings and image quality. Radiology 273:793–800CrossRefPubMed Shuman WP, Chan KT, Busey JM et al (2014) Standard and reduced radiation dose liver CT images: adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction versus model-based iterative reconstruction-comparison of findings and image quality. Radiology 273:793–800CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Emergency assessment of patients with acute abdominal pain using low-dose CT with iterative reconstruction: a comparative study
Authors
Pierre-Alexandre Poletti
Minerva Becker
Christoph D. Becker
Alice Halfon Poletti
Olivier T. Rutschmann
Habib Zaidi
Thomas Perneger
Alexandra Platon
Publication date
01-08-2017
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
European Radiology / Issue 8/2017
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-016-4712-9

Other articles of this Issue 8/2017

European Radiology 8/2017 Go to the issue