Ultralow dose coronary calcium scoring CT at reduced tube voltage and current by using deep learning image reconstruction

•Ultralow dose calcium scoring CT can be achieved with simultaneous reduction of the tube voltage and current.•Deep learning reconstruction enables reliable calcium scoring and risk categorization at ultralow dose.•The proven feasibility of ultralow dose calcium scoring CT with deep learning reconst...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:European journal of radiology 2024-12, Vol.181, p.111742, Article 111742
Hauptverfasser: Zhuo, Liyong, Xu, Shijie, Zhang, Guozhi, Xing, Lihong, Zhang, Yu, Ma, Zepeng, Wang, Jianing, Yin, Xiaoping
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:•Ultralow dose calcium scoring CT can be achieved with simultaneous reduction of the tube voltage and current.•Deep learning reconstruction enables reliable calcium scoring and risk categorization at ultralow dose.•The proven feasibility of ultralow dose calcium scoring CT with deep learning reconstruction shows potential for further dose optimization. To explore the potential of the deep learning reconstruction (DLR) for ultralow dose calcium scoring CT (CSCT) with simultaneously reduced tube voltage and current. In this prospective study, seventy-five patients (group A) undergoing routine dose CSCT (120kVp/30mAs) were followed by a low dose (120kVp/20mAs) scan and another 81 (group B) were followed by an ultralow dose (80kVp/20mAs) scan. The hybrid iterative reconstruction was used for the routine dose data while the DLR for data of reduced dose. The calcium score and risk categorization were compared, where the correlation was evaluated using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). The noise suppression performance of DLR was characterized by the contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) between coronary arteries and pericoronary fat. The effective dose was 0.32 ± 0.03 vs. 0.48 ± 0.05 mSv for the two scans in group A and 0.09 ± 0.01 vs. 0.49 ± 0.05 mSv in group B. No significant difference was found on CACSs within either group (A: p = 0.10, ICC=0.99; B: p = 0.14, ICC=0.99), nor was it different on risk categorization (A: p = 0.32, ICC=0.99; B: p = 0.16, ICC=0.99). The DLR images exhibited higher CNR in both groups (A: p 
ISSN:0720-048X
1872-7727
1872-7727
DOI:10.1016/j.ejrad.2024.111742