title: Effects of acquisition time and reconstruction algorithm on image quality, quantitative parameters, and clinical interpretation of myocardial perfusion imaging.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Recently introduced iterative reconstruction algorithms with resolution recovery (RR) and noise-reduction technology seem promising for reducing scan time or radiation dose without loss of image quality. However, the relative effects of reduced acquisition time and reconstruction software have not previously been reported. The aim of the present study was to investigate the influence of reduced acquisition time and reconstruction software on quantitative and qualitative myocardial perfusion single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) parameters using full time (FT) and half time (HT) protocols and Evolution for Cardiac Software.
  
  
  METHODS
  We studied 45 consecutive, non-selected patients referred for a clinically indicated routine 2-day stress/rest (99m)Tc-Sestamibi myocardial perfusion SPECT. All patients underwent an FT and an HT scan. Both FT and HT scans were processed according to our standard procedure with both ordered-subset expectation maximization (OSEM) + filtered back projection (FBP) reconstructions and a second reconstruction of HT scans was performed with the RR software producing three datasets for each patient for visual analysis (FT-OSEM, HT-OSEM, and HT-RR) and for quantitative analysis (FT-FBP, HT-FBP, and HT-RR). The datasets were analyzed using commercially available QGS/QPS software and read by two observers evaluating image quality and clinical interpretation. Image quality was assessed on a 10-cm visual analog scale score.
  
  
  RESULTS
  HT imaging was associated with loss of image quality that was compensated for by RR reconstruction. HT imaging was also associated with increasing perfusion defect extents, an effect more pronounced using RR than FBP reconstruction. Compared to standard FT-FBP, HT-RR significantly reduced left ventricular volumes whereas HT-FBP increased end-systolic volume. HT imaging had no effect on measured left ventricular ejections fraction or measures of reversibility. Image interpretation found a higher level of concordance between FT-OSEM and HT-RR than between FT-OSEM and HT-OSEM without any observable systematic effects.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Use of RR reconstruction algorithms compensates for loss of image quality associated with reduced scan time. Both HT acquisition and RR reconstruction algorithm had significant effects on motion and perfusion parameters obtained with standard software, but these effects were relatively small and probably of limited clinical importance. Although no systematic effects on image interpretation were observed, the influence on diagnostic accuracy remains to be determined.
authors: Section of Clinical Physiology and Nuclear Medicine, Department of Diagnostics, Glostrup Hospital, Nordre Ringvej, 2600, Glostrup, Denmark, lene0004@regionh.dk.
authors: Lotte H
authors: LH
authors: Enevoldsen
authors: Changez A K
authors: CA
authors: Menashi
authors: Ulrik B
authors: UB
authors: Andersen
authors: Lars T
authors: LT
authors: Jensen
authors: Otto M
authors: OM
authors: Henriksen
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D000465:Algorithms; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D007091:Image Processing, Computer-Assisted; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D055414:Myocardial Perfusion Imaging / Q000379:methods*; D013997:Time Factors; D015899:Tomography, Emission-Computed, Single-Photon / Q000379:methods*
references: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2010 Apr;37(4):750-7
references: 19921186
references: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011 Mar;38(3):499-508
references: 21069317
references: Nucl Med Commun. 2012 Feb;33(2):121-9
references: 22107994
references: J Nucl Cardiol. 2012 Oct;19(5):945-57
references: 22753073
references: Nucl Med Commun. 2010 Jun;31(6):552-7
references: 20300043
references: J Nucl Cardiol. 2009 Sep-Oct;16(5):736-52
references: 19533264
references: J Nucl Cardiol. 2009 Sep-Oct;16(5):714-25
references: 19582531
references: J Nucl Med. 2009 Apr;50(4):554-62
references: 19289436
references: J Nucl Cardiol. 2008 Jul-Aug;15(4):547-63
references: 18674723
references: J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012 Dec 18;60(24):e44-e164
references: 23182125
references: J Nucl Med. 2003 Feb;44(2):155-62
references: 12571203
references: J Am Coll Cardiol. 2003 Oct 1;42(7):1318-33
references: 14522503
references: J Nucl Cardiol. 2012 Aug;19(4):704-12
references: 22527795
references: J Nucl Med. 1991 Oct;32(10):1961-5
references: 1833517
references: J Nucl Cardiol. 2007 Jul;14(4):555-65
references: 17679065
references: J Nucl Med. 2010 Jan;51(1):46-51
references: 20008999
references: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2008 Feb;35(2):329-35
references: 17929012
references: J Nucl Cardiol. 2011 Apr;18(2):273-80
references: 21287370
references: J Nucl Med. 1995 Apr;36(4):569-74
references: 7699443