Keywords:
Cardiovascular system, CT, Acceptance testing, Arteriosclerosis
Authors:
N. Matsuura1, W. Yamasaki2, K. Awai3; 1Hiroshima City/JP, 2Horoshma/JP, 3Hiroshima/JP
DOI:
10.1594/ecr2013/C-0892
Results
The figure 1 and 2 are for the representative images. In fig.1 image noise was markedly improved by the aplication of IR. In fig.2 green dots suggest calcification automatically identified by the scoring software. In FBP image,
there were scattering green dots caused by image noises and mimicking calcification.
Radiation dose and CACS result are shown in the table 2. Radiation dose for the IR with low tube current was significanlt lower than that for the FBP with normal tube current. Percentage difference between FBP and IR was 25.44% for Agatston score,
26.18% for volume score and 34.29% for mass score. As shown in the figure 3,
Bland-Altman analysis revealed there was no systemic bias in Agatston,
volume and mass methods. The limit of agreement was -2.01 to2.27 for Agatston score,
-1.06 to 1.21 for volume score and -1.61 to 1.86 for mass score respectively (table 3).
Percentage difference between FBP and IR was inferior to the previously reported study,
but that may due to relatively low CAC score of our study (table 4).
Limits of Agreement was satisfying when compared with the our past study of repeated retrospective ECG-triggered CAC scan of FBP reconstruction (table 5).