J Korean Soc Radiol.  2018 Apr;78(4):235-241. 10.3348/jksr.2018.78.4.235.

Comparison of Image Qualities of 80 kVp and 120 kVp CT Venography Using Model-Based Iterative Reconstruction at Same Radiation Dose

• Baek HJ
• Choo KS
• Nam KJ
• Hwang JY
• Lee JW
• Kim JY
• Jung HJ

• KMID: 2407928
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.3348/jksr.2018.78.4.235

Abstract

PURPOSE
To compare image qualities of 80 kVp CT venography (CTV) and 120 kVp CTV by model-based iterative reconstruction (MBIR) at the same radiation dose.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Sixty-nine patients that underwent CTV using 80 kVp (36 patients, group 1) or 120 kVp (33 patients, group 2) with MBIR at the same radiation dose were enrolled, and objective and subjective image qualities were assessed independently by two radiologists.
RESULTS
Mean vascular enhancement and contrast-to-noise ratio were significantly higher in group 1 than in group 2 for inferior vena cavas, femoral veins, and popliteal veins (p < 0.001), and there was significantly lower objective image noise in group 1 (p < 0.001). Subjective analysis revealed image quality was significantly higher in group 1 and image noise was significantly higher in group 2 (p < 0.001). Mean dose-length products was not significantly lower in group 1 (356.1 ± 153.7 mGy cm) than in group 2 (370.1 ± 77.1 mGy cm) (p = 0.635).
CONCLUSION
CTV at 80 kVp with MBIR is a better protocol than CTV at 120 kVp with MBIR at the same radiation dose.

MeSH Terms

Femoral Vein
Humans
Lower Extremity
Multidetector Computed Tomography
Noise
Phlebography*
Popliteal Vein
Radiation Dosage
Veins
Vena Cava, Inferior

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1. Comparison of vascular enhancement (mean) and image noise (SD). (A) 60-year-old female patient that underwent CTV at 80 kVp, and (B) 79-year-old female patient that underwent CTV at 120 kVp. The 80 kVp images showing better objective vascular enhancement, and lower image noise levels. The contrast-to-noise ratio in (A) was higher than in (B). (A) IVC-7.6, FV-6.7, PopV-7.7, (B) IVC-3.3, FV-3.9, PopV-3.3. CTV = CT venography, FV = femoral vein, IVC = inferior vena cava, PopV = popliteal vein, SD = standard deviation

Reference

References

1. Cho ES, Chung JJ, Kim S, Kim JH, Yu JS, Yoon CS. CT venography for deep vein thrombosis using a low tube voltage (100 kVp) setting could increase venous enhancement and reduce the amount of administered iodine. Korean J Radiol. 2013; 14:183–193.

2. Loud PA, Katz DS, Klippenstein DL, Shah RD, Grossman ZD. Combined CT venography and pulmonary angiography in suspected thromboembolic disease: diagnostic accuracy for deep venous evaluation. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2000; 174:61–65.

3. Duwe KM, Shiau M, Budorick NE, Austin JH, Berkmen YM. Evaluation of the lower extremity veins in patients with suspected pulmonary embolism: a retrospective comparison of helical CT venography and sonography. 2000 ARRS Executive Council Award I. American Roentgen Ray Society. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2000; 175:1525–1531.

4. Byun SS, Kim JH, Kim YJ, Jeon YS, Park CH, Kim WH. Evaluation of deep vein thrombosis with multidetector row CT after orthopedic arthroplasty: a prospective study for comparison with Doppler sonography. Korean J Radiol. 2008; 9:59–66.

5. Liu L. Model-based iterative reconstruction: a promising algorithm for today's computed tomography imaging. J Med Imag Radiat Sci. 2014; 45:131–136.

6. Kalra MK, Maher MM, Blake MA, Lucey BC, Karau K, Toth TL, et al. Detection and characterization of lesions on low-radiation-dose abdominal CT images postprocessed with noise reduction filters. Radiology. 2004; 232:791–797.

7. Ichikawa Y, Kitagawa K, Nagasawa N, Murashima S, Sakuma H. CT of the chest with model-based, fully iterative reconstruction: comparison with adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction. BMC Med Imaging. 2013; 13:27.

8. Nelson RC, Feuerlein S, Boll DT. New iterative reconstruction techniques for cardiovascular computed tomography: how do they work, and what are the advantages and disadvantages? J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2011; 5:286–292.

9. Kim JH, Choo KS, Moon TY, Lee JW, Jeon UB, Kim TU, et al. Comparison of the image qualities of filtered back-projection, adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction, and model-based iterative reconstruction for CT venography at 80 kVp. Eur Radiol. 2016; 26:2055–2063.

10. Kalra MK, Maher MM, Toth TL, Schmidt B, Westerman BL, Morgan HT, et al. Techniques and applications of automatic tube current modulation for CT. Radiology. 2004; 233:649–657.

11. Fujikawa A, Matsuoka S, Kuramochi K, Yoshikawa T, Yagi-hashi K, Kurihara Y, et al. Vascular enhancement and image quality of CT venography: comparison of standard and low kilovoltage settings. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011; 197:838–843.

12. Kulkarni NM, Sahani DV, Desai GS, Kalva SP. Indirect computed tomography venography of the lower extremities using single-source dualenergy computed tomography: advantage of low-kiloelectron volt monochromatic images. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2012; 23:879–886.

13. Nakayama Y, Awai K, Funama Y, Hatemura M, Imuta M, Nakaura T, et al. Abdominal CT with low tube voltage: preliminary observations about radiation dose, contrast enhancement, image quality, and noise. Radiology. 2005; 237:945–951.

14. Curry TS, Dowdey JE, Murry RC. Christensen's physics of diagnostic radiology. 4th ed.Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins;1990.

15. Wintersperger B, Jakobs T, Herzog P, Schaller S, Nikolaou K, Suess C, et al. Aorto-iliac multidetector-row CT angiography with low kV settings: improved vessel enhancement and simultaneous reduction of radiation dose. Eur Radiol. 2005; 15:334–341.

16. Ertl-Wagner BB, Hoffmann RT, Bruning R, Herrmann K, Snyder B, Blume JD, et al. Multi-detector row CT angiography of the brain at various kilovoltage settings. Radiology. 2004; 231:528–535.

17. Gunn ML, Kohr JR. State of the art: technologies for computed tomography dose reduction. Emerg Radiol. 2010; 17:209–218.

18. Thibault JB, Sauer KD, Bouman CA, Hsieh J. A three-dimensional statistical approach to improved image quality for multislice helical CT. Med Phys. 2007; 34:4526–4544.

19. Pickhardt PJ, Lubner MG, Kim DH, Tang J, Ruma JA, del Rio AM, et al. 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. 2012; 199:1266–1274.

20. Vardhanabhuti V, Loader RJ, Mitchell GR, Riordan RD, Roobottom CA. Image quality assessment of standard- and low-dose chest CT using filtered back projection, adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction, and novel model-based iterative reconstruction algorithms. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2013; 200:545–552.

21. Miéville FA, Gudinchet F, Brunelle F, Bochud FO, Verdun FR. Iterative reconstruction methods in two different MDCT scanners: physical metrics and 4-alternative forced-choice detectability experiments–a phantom approach. Phys Med. 2013; 29:99–110.

22. Brisse HJ, Madec L, Gaboriaud G, Lemoine T, Savignoni A, Neuenschwander S, et al. Automatic exposure control in multichannel CT with tube current modulation to achieve a constant level of image noise: experimental assessment on pediatric phantoms. Med Phys. 2007; 34:3018–3033.