Deep learning versus iterative reconstruction for CT pulmonary angiography in the emergency setting: Improved image quality and reduced radiation dose

49Citations
Citations of this article
53Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

To compare image quality and the radiation dose of computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA) subjected to the first deep learning-based image reconstruction (DLR) (50%) algorithm, with images subjected to the hybrid-iterative reconstruction (IR) technique (50%). One hundred forty patients who underwent CTPA for suspected pulmonary embolism (PE) between 2018 and 2019 were retrospectively reviewed. Image quality was assessed quantitatively (image noise, signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR)) and qualitatively (on a 5-point scale). Radiation dose parameters (CT dose index, CTDIvol; and dose-length product, DLP) were also recorded. Ninety-three patients were finally analyzed, 48 with hybrid-IR and 45 with DLR images. The image noise was significantly lower and the SNR (24.4 ± 5.9 vs. 20.7 ± 6.1) and CNR (21.8 ± 5.8 vs. 18.6 ± 6.0) were significantly higher on DLR than hybrid-IR images (p < 0.01). DLR images received a significantly higher score than hybrid-IR images for image quality, with both soft (4.4 ± 0.7 vs. 3.8 ± 0.8) and lung (4.1 ± 0.7 vs. 3.6 ± 0.9) filters (p < 0.01). No difference in diagnostic confidence level for PE between both techniques was found. CTDIvol (4.8 ± 1.4 vs. 4.0 ± 1.2 mGy) and DLP (157.9 ± 44.9 vs. 130.8 ± 41.2 mGy·cm) were lower on DLR than hybrid-IR images. DLR both significantly improved the image quality and reduced the radiation dose of CTPA examinations as compared to the hybrid-IR technique.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Lenfant, M., Chevallier, O., Comby, P. O., Secco, G., Haioun, K., Ricolfi, F., … Loffroy, R. (2020). Deep learning versus iterative reconstruction for CT pulmonary angiography in the emergency setting: Improved image quality and reduced radiation dose. Diagnostics, 10(8). https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics10080558

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free