Evaluation of the contrast-detail response of a cardiovascular angiography system and the influence of equipment variables on image quality

Dragusin, Octavian; Smans, Kristien; Jacobs, Jurgen; İnal, Tolga; Bosmans, Hilde

doi:10.1117/12.769780

Cited by 3 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…22 It is important that patient dimensions, total x-ray attenuation, and spectral im- pact are accurately represented when optimizing both the x-ray spectra and the presence or absence of the antiscatter grid. Selected phantom thicknesses were similar to those utilized in previously published studies 11,13,[21][22][23]55 which, together, exhibit a variety of phantom designs used for pediatric optimization experiments. The need is clear for a scientifically recognized standard phantom design to allow experimental results to be more reproducible and meaningful.…”

Section: Ivd Limitations Of the Studymentioning

confidence: 82%

Dose optimization in pediatric cardiac x‐ray imaging

2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

For pediatric patients, using 0.25-0.9 mm Cu filtration in the x-ray beam while maintaining 50-55 kVp, depending on patient size, provided optimal x-ray image quality to dose ratios. These settings, adjusted for x-ray tube loading limits and clinically acceptable image quality, should provide a useful strategy for optimizing iodine contrast agent based cardiac x-ray imaging. Removing the antiscatter grid improved the FOM for the 8.5 and 12 cm phantoms, therefore grid removal is recommended for younger children. Improvement for the 16 cm phantom declined into the estimated margin of error for the FOM; the need for grid removal for older children would depend on practical feasibility in the clinical environment.

show abstract

Section: Ivd Limitations Of the Studymentioning

confidence: 82%

Dose optimization in pediatric cardiac x‐ray imaging

2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Our FOM can be useful for optimisation of the x-ray units and imaging protocols. On the other hand, from the reviewed literature on optimisation, it was found that the common FOM formulas that are utilised with LCD detectability and a CD phantom such as CDRAD 2.0 phantom used are FOM=SNR 2 /dose and FOM=CNR 2 /dose [36][37][38]. However, these two formulas use SNR and CNR as a metric which are self-limiting since, as stated, they do not take into account the object size (pathology or anatomical structure) during IQ evaluation [39] which is considered a limitation in these two measures of IQ.…”

Section: Iq Versus Radiation Dose/fommentioning

confidence: 99%

A novel method for comparing radiation dose and image quality, between and within different x-ray units in a series of hospitals

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: To develop a novel method for comparing radiation dose and image quality (IQ) to evaluate adult chest X-ray (CXR) imaging among several hospitals. Methods: CDRAD 2.0 phantom was used to acquire images in eight hospitals (17 digital X-ray units) using local adult CXR protocols. IQ was represented by image quality figure inverse (IQFinv), measured using CDRAD analyser software. Signal to noise ratio (SNR), contrast to noise ratio (CNR) and conspicuity index (CI) were calculated as additional measures of IQ. Incident air kerma (IAK) was calculated using a solid-state dosimeter for each acquisition. Figure of merit (FOM) was calculated to provide a single estimation of IQ and radiation dose.Results: IQ, radiation dose and FOM varied considerably between hospitals and X-ray units. For IQFinv, the mean (range) between and within the hospitals were 1.42 (0.83-2.18) and 1.87 (1.52-2.18), respectively. For IAK, the mean (range) between and within the hospitals were ) µGy, respectively. For FOM, the mean (range) between and within hospitals were 0.

show abstract

“…The spectrum of the beam can be influenced by the kV, added Cu filtration, thickness of the patient and the presence or absence of the grid. Dragusin et al, 2008b investigated influence on image quality of three factors: detector entrance dose, effect of antiscatter grid and patient thickness using two contrast phantoms (Leeds TO10 and CDRAD). These phantoms were imaged in fluoroscopy and cineangiography mode.…”

Section: Optimization Strategies Of Image Quality and Radiation Dosementioning

confidence: 99%

Optimization of Radiation Dose and Image Quality in Cardiac Catheterization Laboratories

Dragusin¹,

Bokou²,

Wagner³

et al. 2011

Advances in the Diagnosis of Coronary Atherosclerosis

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Evaluation of the contrast-detail response of a cardiovascular angiography system and the influence of equipment variables on image quality

Cited by 3 publications

References 3 publications

Dose optimization in pediatric cardiac x‐ray imaging

Dose optimization in pediatric cardiac x‐ray imaging

A novel method for comparing radiation dose and image quality, between and within different x-ray units in a series of hospitals

Optimization of Radiation Dose and Image Quality in Cardiac Catheterization Laboratories

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About