The Effect of Reconstruction Method on the Ability to Analyze of FFR Using CT

DOI Web Site Web Site PubMed 1 References
  • Inage Hidekazu
    Department of Radiological Technology, Juntendo University Hospital
  • Kogure Yosuke
    Department of Radiological Technology, Juntendo University Hospital
  • Kumamaru Kanako
    Department of Radiology, Graduate School of Medicine, Juntendo University
  • Fujimoto Shinichiro
    Department of Cardiology, Graduate School of Medicine, Juntendo University
  • Takamura Kazuhisa
    Department of Cardiology, Graduate School of Medicine, Juntendo University
  • Kawaguchi Yuko
    Department of Cardiology, Graduate School of Medicine, Juntendo University
  • Han Ni Htun
    Department of Radiological Technology, Juntendo University Hospital
  • Hoshito Haruyoshi
    Department of Radiological Technology, Juntendo University Hospital

Bibliographic Information

Other Title
  • CT による冠血流予備量比の解析能に再構成方法が与える影響について
  • 臨床技術 CTによる冠血流予備量比の解析能に再構成方法が与える影響について
  • リンショウ ギジュツ CT ニ ヨル カン ケツリュウ ヨビリョウヒ ノ カイセキノウ ニ サイコウセイ ホウホウ ガ アタエル エイキョウ ニ ツイテ

Search this article

Abstract

<p>Background: Invasive-fractional flow reserve (FFR) is the reference standard to evaluate functional ischemia of coronary arteries, and is used to decide if percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty is necessary. Recently, computed tomography-derived FFR (CT-FFR) is emerged as an alternative non-invasive method. Objectives: To evaluate the effect of reconstruction methods and image parameters on the accuracy of CT-FFR calculation. Methods: A total of 26 segments in the consecutive 10 coronary CT angiography (CCTA) studies were evaluated. All studies were reconstructed using three different techniques: 1) filtered back projection (FBP), 2) adaptive iterative dose reduction 3D (AIDR 3D), and 3) forward projected model-based iterative reconstruction solution (FIRST). Vessel segmentation was performed automatically by CT-FFR software, with manual adjustment if necessary. Calculated CT-FFR was compared with the invasive FFR data. Results: Compared to FBP, AIDR 3D and FIRST resulted in more successful automatic segmentation. When using FIRST, 7 segments (27%) were completed without manual adjustment. These segments had relatively larger vessel diameter, higher CT number, and lower noise. The difference between the calculated CT-FFR and invasive-FFR was 0.02±0.01. Among the remaining, 10 segments (38%) required manual adjustments of centerline, 7 segments (27%) required manual adjustments of contour, and 2 segments (8%) did not reach to the CT-FFR calculation. Conclusion: AIDR 3D and FIRST were useful for reliable automatic segmentation and analysis of CT-FFR.</p>

Journal

References(1)*help

See more

Keywords

Details 詳細情報について

Report a problem

Back to top