Top

The International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging

Published in:

Open Access 01-06-2018 | Original Paper

Influence of iterative reconstruction on coronary calcium scores at multiple heart rates: a multivendor phantom study on state-of-the-art CT systems

Authors: N. R. van der Werf, M. J. Willemink, T. P. Willems, M. J. W. Greuter, T. Leiner

Published in: The International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging | Issue 6/2018

Abstract

The objective of this study was to evaluate the influence of iterative reconstruction on coronary calcium scores (CCS) at different heart rates for four state-of-the-art CT systems. Within an anthropomorphic chest phantom, artificial coronary arteries were translated in a water-filled compartment. The arteries contained three different calcifications with low (38 mg), medium (80 mg) and high (157 mg) mass. Linear velocities were applied, corresponding to heart rates of 0, < 60, 60–75 and > 75 bpm. Data were acquired on four state-of-the-art CT systems (CT1–CT4) with routinely used CCS protocols. Filtered back projection (FBP) and three increasing levels of iterative reconstruction (L1–L3) were used for reconstruction. CCS were quantified as Agatston score and mass score. An iterative reconstruction susceptibility (IRS) index was used to assess susceptibility of Agatston score (IRS_AS) and mass score (IRS_MS) to iterative reconstruction. IRS values were compared between CT systems and between calcification masses. For each heart rate, differences in CCS of iterative reconstructed images were evaluated with CCS of FBP images as reference, and indicated as small (< 5%), medium (5–10%) or large (> 10%). Statistical analysis was performed with repeated measures ANOVA tests. While subtle differences were found for Agatston scores of low mass calcification, medium and high mass calcifications showed increased CCS up to 77% with increasing heart rates. IRS_AS of CT1–T4 were 17, 41, 130 and 22% higher than IRS_MS. Not only were IRS significantly different between all CT systems, but also between calcification masses. Up to a fourfold increase in IRS was found for the low mass calcification in comparison with the high mass calcification. With increasing iterative reconstruction strength, maximum decreases of 21 and 13% for Agatston and mass score were found. In total, 21 large differences between Agatston scores from FBP and iterative reconstruction were found, while only five large differences were found between FBP and iterative reconstruction mass scores. Iterative reconstruction results in reduced CCS. The effect of iterative reconstruction on CCS is more prominent with low-density calcifications, high heart rates and increasing iterative reconstruction strength.

Available only for authorised users

Sato J, Akahane M, Inano S et al (2012) Effect of radiation dose and adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction on image quality of pulmonary computed tomography. Jpn J Radiol 30:146–153. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11604-011-0026-7 CrossRefPubMed

Moscariello A, Takx R, Schoepf U (2011) Coronary CT angiography: image quality, diagnostic accuracy, and potential for radiation dose reduction using a novel iterative image reconstruction technique—comparison with traditional filtered back projection. Eur Radiol 21:2130–2138. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-011-2164-9 CrossRefPubMed

Funama Y, Taguchi K, Utsunomiya D et al (2012) Combination of a low-tube-voltage technique with hybrid iterative reconstruction (iDose) algorithm at coronary computed tomographic angiography. J Comput Assist Tomogr 35:480–485. https://doi.org/10.1097/RCT.0b013e31821fee94 CrossRef

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 22:295–301. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-011-2271-7 CrossRefPubMed

Korn A, Fenchel M, Bender B et al (2012) Iterative reconstruction in head CT: image quality of routine and low-dose protocols in comparison with standard filtered back-projection. Am J Neuroradiol 33:218–224. https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A2749 CrossRefPubMed

Prakash P, Kalra MK, Digumarthy SR et al (2010) Radiation dose reduction with chest computed tomography using adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction technique: initial experience. J Comput Assist Tomogr 34:40–45. https://doi.org/10.1097/RCT.0b013e3181b26c67 CrossRefPubMed

Winklehner A, Karlo C, Puippe G et al (2011) Raw data-based iterative reconstruction in body CTA: evaluation of radiation dose saving potential. Eur Radiol 21:2521–2526. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-011-2227-y CrossRefPubMed

Leipsic J, LaBounty TM, Heilbron B et al (2010) Estimated radiation dose reduction using adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction in coronary CT angiography: the ERASIR study. Am J Roentgenol 195:655–660. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.10.4288 CrossRef

Singh S, Kalra MKM, Gilman MMD et al (2011) Adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction technique for radiation dose reduction in chest CT: a pilot study. Radiology 259:565–573. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.11101450 CrossRefPubMed

10.

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 5:286–292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcct.2011.07.001 CrossRefPubMed

11.

Schindler A, Vliegenthart R, Schoepf UJ et al (2014) Iterative image reconstruction techniques for CT coronary artery calcium quantification: comparison with traditional filtered back projection in vitro and in vivo. Radiology 270:387–393. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.13130233 CrossRefPubMed

12.

Van Osch JAC, Mouden M, Van Dalen JA et al (2014) Influence of iterative image reconstruction on CT-based calcium score measurements. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 30:961–967. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10554-014-0409-9 PubMedCrossRef

13.

Willemink MJ, Abramiuc B, den Harder AM et al (2015) Coronary calcium scores are systematically underestimated at a large chest size: a multivendor phantom study. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr 9:415–421. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcct.2015.03.010 CrossRefPubMed

14.

Willemink MJ, Vliegenthart R, Takx R P, et al (2014) Coronary artery calcification scoring with state-of-the-art CT scanners from different vendors has substantial effect on risk classification. Radiology 273:695–702. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.14140066 CrossRefPubMed

15.

Murazaki H, Funama Y, Hatemura M et al (2011) Quantitative evaluation of calcium (content) in the coronary artery using hybrid iterative reconstruction (iDose) algorithm on low-dose 64-detector CT: comparison of iDose and filtered back projection. Nihon Hoshasen Gijutsu Gakkai Zasshi 67:360–366. https://doi.org/10.6009/jjrt.67.360 CrossRefPubMed

16.

Kurata A, Dharampal A, Dedic A et al (2013) Impact of iterative reconstruction on CT coronary calcium quantification. Eur Radiol 23:3246–3252. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-013-3022-8 CrossRefPubMed

17.

Gebhard C, Fiechter M, Fuchs TA et al (2013) Coronary artery calcium scoring: Influence of adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction using 64-MDCT. Int J Cardiol 167:2932–2937. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcard.2012.08.003 CrossRefPubMed

18.

Szilveszter B, Elzomor H, Károlyi M et al (2016) The effect of iterative model reconstruction on coronary artery calcium quantification. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 32:153–160. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10554-015-0740-9 CrossRefPubMed

19.

Agatston AS, Janowitz WR, Hildner FJ et al (1990) Quantification of coronary artery calcium using ultrafast computed tomography. J Am Coll Cardiol 15:827–832 pii]CrossRefPubMed

20.

Wilson PW, D’Agostino RB, Levy D et al (1998) Prediction of coronary heart disease using risk factor categories. Circulation 97:1837–1847. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.CIR.97.18.1837 CrossRefPubMed

21.

Greuter MJW, Groen JM, Nicolai LJ et al (2009) A model for quantitative correction of coronary calcium scores on multidetector, dual source, and electron beam computed tomography for influences of linear motion, calcification density, and temporal resolution: a cardiac phantom study. Med Phys 36:5079–5088. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.3213536 CrossRefPubMed

22.

Goff DC, Lloyd-Jones DM, Bennett G et al (2014) 2013 ACC/AHA guideline on the assessment of cardiovascular risk: A report of the American college of cardiology/American heart association task force on practice guidelines. Circulation 129:49–76. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.cir.0000437741.48606.98 CrossRef

23.

Achenbach S, Ropers D, Holle J et al (2000) In-plane coronary arterial motion velocity: measurement with electron-beam CT1. Radiology 216:457–463. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.216.2.r00au19457 CrossRefPubMed

24.

Husmann L, Leschka S, Desbiolles L et al (2007) Coronary artery motion and cardiac phases: dependency on heart rate -- implications for CT image reconstruction. Radiology 245:567–576. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2451061791 CrossRefPubMed

25.

Brodoefel H, Burgstahler C, Tsiflikas I et al (2008) Dual-source CT: effect of heart rate, heart rate variability, and calcification on image quality and diagnostic accuracy. Radiology 247:346–355. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2472070906 CrossRefPubMed

26.

Groen JM, Greuter MJW, Vliegenthart R et al (2008) Calcium scoring using 64-slice MDCT, dual source CT and EBT: a comparative phantom study. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 24:547–556. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10554-007-9282-0 CrossRefPubMed

27.

Tigges S, Arepalli CD, Tridandapani S et al (2012) A phantom study of the effect of heart rate, coronary artery displacement and vessel trajectory on coronary artery calcium score: potential for risk misclassification. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr 6:260–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcct.2012.01.005 CrossRefPubMed

28.

Willemink MJ, De Jong PA, Leiner T et al (2013) Iterative reconstruction techniques for computed tomography part 1: technical principles. Eur Radiol 23:1623–1631. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-012-2765-y CrossRefPubMed

29.

McCollough CH, Ulzheimer S, Halliburton SS et al (2007) Coronary artery calcium: a multi-institutional, multimanufacturer international standard for quantification at cardiac CT. Radiology 243:527–538. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2432050808 CrossRefPubMed

30.

Criqui MH, Denenberg JO, Ix JH et al (2014) Calcium density of coronary artery plaque and risk of incident cardiovascular events. JAMA 311:271–278. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2013.282535 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

31.

Youssef G, Kalia N, Darabian S, Budoff MJ (2014) Coronary calcium: new insights, recent data, and clinical role. Curr Cardiol Rep 15:1–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11886-012-0325-3.Coronary CrossRef

32.

Budoff MJ, Hokanson JE, Nasir K et al (2010) Progression of coronary artery calcium predicts all-cause mortality. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 3:1229–1236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcmg.2010.08.018 CrossRefPubMed

33.

Raggi P, Shaw LJ, Berman DS, Callister TQ (2004) Prognostic value of coronary artery calcium screening in subjects with and without diabetes. J Am Coll Cardiol 43:1663–1669. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2003.09.068 CrossRefPubMed

34.

Raggi P, Cooil B, Shaw LJ et al (2003) Progression of coronary calcium on serial electron beam tomographic scanning is greater in patients with future myocardial infarction. Am J Cardiol 92:827–829CrossRefPubMed

35.

Gopal A, Nasir K, Liu ST et al (2007) Coronary calcium progression rates with a zero initial score by electron beam tomography. Int J Cardiol 117:227–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcard.2006.04.081 CrossRefPubMed

36.

Funabashi N, Irie R, Namihira Y et al (2015) Influence of tube voltage and heart rate on the Agatston calcium score using an in vitro, novel ECG-gated dual energy reconstruction 320 slice CT technique. Int J Cardiol 180:218–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcard.2014.11.164 CrossRefPubMed

37.

Hong C, Bae KT, Pilgram TK, Zhu F (2003) Coronary artery calcium quantification at multi-detector row CT: influence of heart rate and measurement methods on interacquisition variability initial experience. Radiology 228:95–100. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2281020685 CrossRefPubMed

38.

Groen JM, Greuter MJ, Schmidt B et al (2007) The influence of heart rate, slice thickness, and calcification density on calcium scores using 64-slice multidetector computed tomography: a systematic phantom study. Invest Radiol 42:848–855. https://doi.org/10.1097/RLI.0b013e318154c549 CrossRefPubMed

39.

Groen JM, Kofoed KF, Zacho M et al (2013) Calcium score of small coronary calcifications on multidetector computed tomography: results from a static phantom study. Eur J Radiol 82:e58–e63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2012.09.018 CrossRefPubMed

40.

van der Werf NR, Willemink MJ, Willems TP et al (2017) Influence of dose reduction and iterative reconstruction on CT calcium scores: a multi-manufacturer dynamic phantom study. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10554-017-1061-y PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

41.

Fuchs A, Groen JM, Arnold BA et al (2017) Assessment of coronary calcification using calibrated mass score with two different multidetector computed tomography scanners in the Copenhagen General Population Study. Eur J Radiol 88:21–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2016.12.033 CrossRefPubMed

42.

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 57:396–402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2005.12.027 CrossRefPubMed

43.

Rodrigues MA, Williams MC, Fitzgerald T et al (2016) Iterative reconstruction can permit the use of lower X-ray tube current in CT coronary artery calcium scoring. Br J Radiol. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20150780 PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

44.

Matsuura N, Urashima M, Fukumoto W et al (2014) Radiation dose reduction at coronary artery calcium scoring by using a low tube current technique and hybrid iterative reconstruction. J Comput Assist Tomogr 0:1–6. https://doi.org/10.1097/RCT.0000000000000168 CrossRef

45.

Li Q, Liu S, Myers KJ et al (2016) Impact of reconstruction algorithms and gender-associated anatomy on coronary calcium scoring with CT: an anthropomorphic phantom study. Acad Radiol 23:1470–1479. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2016.08.014 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

46.

Oda S, Utsunomiya D, Nakaura T et al (2017) The influence of iterative reconstruction on coronary artery calcium scoring: phantom and clinical studies. Acad Radiol 24:295–301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2016.11.003 CrossRefPubMed

47.

Takahashi M, Kimura F, Umezawa T et al (2016) Comparison of adaptive statistical iterative and filtered back projection reconstruction techniques in quantifying coronary calcium. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr 10:61–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcct.2015.07.012 CrossRefPubMed

48.

Ode S, Kobayashi Y, Nozu Y et al (2016) The impact of iterative reconstruction on reducing the radiation dose for coronary calcium scoring: an investigation using pulsating calcified coronary phantom. J St Marian Univ 7:95–103. https://doi.org/10.17264/stmarieng.7.95 CrossRef

Title: Influence of iterative reconstruction on coronary calcium scores at multiple heart rates: a multivendor phantom study on state-of-the-art CT systems
Authors: N. R. van der Werf
M. J. Willemink
T. P. Willems
M. J. W. Greuter
T. Leiner
Publication date: 01-06-2018
Publisher: Springer Netherlands
Published in: The International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging / Issue 6/2018
Print ISSN: 1569-5794
Electronic ISSN: 1875-8312
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10554-017-1292-y

ACC 2024 Congress Coverage

Year in Review: Heart failure and cardiomyopathies

Heart Failure Video

Watch this official video from ACC.24. Dr. Biykem Bozkurt discusses last year's major advances in heart failure and cardiomyopathies.

Watch now

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Influence of iterative reconstruction on coronary calcium scores at multiple heart rates: a multivendor phantom study on state-of-the-art CT systems

Abstract

ACC 2024 Congress Coverage

Year in Review: Heart failure and cardiomyopathies

Semaglutide benefits people with type 2 diabetes and obesity-related heart failure

Incentivised to exercise

New intervention for STEMI-related cardiogenic shock

» View more highlights on the ACC 2024 congress hub page

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 6/2018

Myocardial perfusion in patients with non-ischaemic systolic heart failure and type 2 diabetes: a cross-sectional study using Rubidium-82 PET/CT

Normal pulmonary artery and branch pulmonary artery sizes in children

Influence of heart rate on coronary calcium scores: a multi-manufacturer phantom study

Cardiovascular imaging 2017 in the International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging

Incremental predictive value of carotid arterial strain in patients with stroke

Scan–rescan reproducibility of diastolic left ventricular kinetic energy, viscous energy loss and vorticity assessment using 4D flow MRI: analysis in healthy subjects

ACC 2024 Congress Coverage

Year in Review: Heart failure and cardiomyopathies

Semaglutide benefits people with type 2 diabetes and obesity-related heart failure

Incentivised to exercise

New intervention for STEMI-related cardiogenic shock

» View more highlights on the ACC 2024 congress hub page