Myocardial extracellular volume quantification in cardiac CT: comparison of the effects of two different iterative reconstruction algorithms with MRI as a reference standard.
Fibrosis
Heart
Myocardium
Tomography, x-ray computed
Journal
European radiology
ISSN: 1432-1084
Titre abrégé: Eur Radiol
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 9114774
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Feb 2020
Feb 2020
Historique:
received:
17
06
2019
accepted:
08
08
2019
revised:
03
08
2019
pubmed:
1
9
2019
medline:
5
6
2020
entrez:
1
9
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To compare the effects of hybrid iterative reconstruction (HIR) and model-based iterative reconstruction (MBIR) that incorporates a beam-hardening model for myocardial extracellular volume (ECV) quantification by cardiac CT using MRI as a reference standard. In this retrospective study, a total of 34 patients were evaluated using cardiac CT and MRI. Paired CT image sets were created using HIR and MBIR with a beam-hardening model. We calculated mean absolute differences and correlations between the global mid-ventricular ECV derived from CT and MRI via Pearson correlation analysis. In addition, we performed qualitative analysis of image noise and beam-hardening artifacts on postcontrast images using a four-point scale: 1 = extensive, 2 = strong, 3 = mild, and 4 = minimal. The mean absolute difference between the ECV derived from CT and MRI for MBIR was significantly smaller than that for HIR (MBIR 3.74 ± 3.59%; HIR 4.95 ± 3.48%, p = 0.034). MBIR improved the correlation between the ECV derived from CT and MRI when compared with HIR (MBIR, r = 0.60, p < 0.001; HIR, r = 0.47, p = 0.006). In qualitative analysis, MBIR significantly reduced image noise and beam-hardening artifacts when compared with HIR ([image noise, MBIR 3.4 ± 0.7; HIR 2.1 ± 0.8, p < 0.001], [beam-hardening artifacts, MBIR 3.8 ± 0.4; HIR 2.6 ± 1.0, p < 0.001]). MBIR with a beam-hardening model effectively reduced image noise and beam-hardening artifacts and improved myocardial ECV quantification when compared with HIR using MRI as a reference standard. • MBIR with a beam-hardening model effectively reduced image noise and beam-hardening artifacts. • The mean absolute difference between the global mid-ventricular ECV derived from CT and MRI for MBIR was significantly smaller than that for conventional HIR. • MBIR provided more accurate myocardial CT number and improved ECV quantification when compared with HIR.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31471751
doi: 10.1007/s00330-019-06418-y
pii: 10.1007/s00330-019-06418-y
doi:
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
691-701Références
J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2017 Oct 9;19(1):75
pubmed: 28992817
J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2017 Jan - Feb;11(1):40-45
pubmed: 27894902
Eur J Radiol. 2018 Sep;106:100-105
pubmed: 30150030
Acad Radiol. 2017 Feb;24(2):124-130
pubmed: 27986507
JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2018 Jan;11(1):38-45
pubmed: 28412435
Radiol Med. 2015 Mar;120(3):259-67
pubmed: 25168773
J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2016 May-Jun;10(3):237-41
pubmed: 26968674
J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2015 May 15;17:34
pubmed: 25976093
Eur Radiol. 2019 May;29(5):2185-2195
pubmed: 30377791
Kidney Int. 2007 Aug;72(3):260-4
pubmed: 17507905
J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2012 Sep-Oct;6(5):318-24
pubmed: 22981854
Eur Radiol. 2019 Oct;29(10):5322-5329
pubmed: 30963270
Appl Radiat Isot. 1999 Jan;50(1):165-72
pubmed: 10028635
J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2017 Sep/Oct;41(5):750-756
pubmed: 28240638
Radiology. 2015 Feb;274(2):370-8
pubmed: 25247406
JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2016 Sep;9(9):1046-1055
pubmed: 27450871
J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2013 Oct 14;15:92
pubmed: 24124732
J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2016 Nov 30;18(1):89
pubmed: 27899132
Radiology. 2012 Sep;264(3):876-83
pubmed: 22771879
Radiology. 2016 Jul;280(1):49-57
pubmed: 27322972
J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2016 Jan 22;18:6
pubmed: 26800662
Eur Radiol. 2019 Jul;29(7):3686-3695
pubmed: 31041566
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2018 Sep;211(3):548-556
pubmed: 30040468