Back to Search Start Over

Coronary Computed Tomography Angiography-Based Calcium Scoring

Authors :
Tilman Emrich
Gilberto Aquino
U. Joseph Schoepf
Franziska M. Braun
Franka Risch
Stefanie J. Bette
Piotr Woznicki
Josua A. Decker
Jim O’Doherty
Verena Brandt
Thomas Allmendinger
Tristan Nowak
Bernhard Schmidt
Thomas Flohr
Thomas J. Kroencke
Christian Scheurig-Muenkler
Akos Varga-Szemes
Florian Schwarz
Source :
Investigative Radiology. 57:536-543
Publication Year :
2022
Publisher :
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health), 2022.

Abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA)-based in vitro and in vivo coronary artery calcium scoring (CACS) using a novel virtual noniodine reconstruction (PureCalcium) on a clinical first-generation photon-counting detector-computed tomography system compared with virtual noncontrast (VNC) reconstructions and true noncontrast (TNC) acquisitions.Although CACS and CCTA are well-established techniques for the assessment of coronary artery disease, they are complementary acquisitions, translating into increased scan time and patient radiation dose. Hence, accurate CACS derived from a single CCTA acquisition would be highly desirable. In this study, CACS based on PureCalcium, VNC, and TNC, reconstructions was evaluated in a CACS phantom and in 67 patients (70 [59/80] years, 58.2% male) undergoing CCTA on a first-generation photon counting detector-computed tomography system. Coronary artery calcium scores were quantified for the 3 reconstructions and compared using Wilcoxon test. Agreement was evaluated by Pearson and Spearman correlation and Bland-Altman analysis. Classification of coronary artery calcium score categories (0, 1-10, 11-100, 101-400, and400) was compared using Cohen κ .Phantom studies demonstrated strong agreement between CACS PureCalcium and CACS TNC (60.7 ± 90.6 vs 67.3 ± 88.3, P = 0.01, r = 0.98, intraclass correlation [ICC] = 0.98; mean bias, 6.6; limits of agreement [LoA], -39.8/26.6), whereas CACS VNC showed a significant underestimation (42.4 ± 75.3 vs 67.3 ± 88.3, P0.001, r = 0.94, ICC = 0.89; mean bias, 24.9; LoA, -87.1/37.2). In vivo comparison confirmed a high correlation but revealed an underestimation of CACS PureCalcium (169.3 [0.7/969.4] vs 232.2 [26.5/1112.2], P0.001, r = 0.97, ICC = 0.98; mean bias, -113.5; LoA, -470.2/243.2). In comparison, CACS VNC showed a similarly high correlation, but a substantially larger underestimation (24.3 [0/272.3] vs 232.2 [26.5/1112.2], P0.001, r = 0.97, ICC = 0.54; mean bias, -551.6; LoA, -2037.5/934.4). CACS PureCalcium showed superior agreement of CACS classification ( κ = 0.88) than CACS VNC ( κ = 0.60).The accuracy of CACS quantification and classification based on PureCalcium reconstructions of CCTA outperforms CACS derived from VNC reconstructions.

Details

ISSN :
15360210 and 00209996
Volume :
57
Database :
OpenAIRE
Journal :
Investigative Radiology
Accession number :
edsair.doi.dedup.....43a915703000d49b17a94cfdbd5ed5e0