These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Coronary Computed Tomography Angiography-Based Calcium Scoring: In Vitro and In Vivo Validation of a Novel Virtual Noniodine Reconstruction Algorithm on a Clinical, First-Generation Dual-Source Photon Counting-Detector System.
    Author: Emrich T, Aquino G, Schoepf UJ, Braun FM, Risch F, Bette SJ, Woznicki P, Decker JA, O'Doherty J, Brandt V, Allmendinger T, Nowak T, Schmidt B, Flohr T, Kroencke TJ, Scheurig-Muenkler C, Varga-Szemes A, Schwarz F.
    Journal: Invest Radiol; 2022 Aug 01; 57(8):536-543. PubMed ID: 35318969.
    Abstract:
    PURPOSE: 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. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 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, and >400) was compared using Cohen κ . RESULTS: 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, P < 0.001, 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], P < 0.001, 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], P < 0.001, 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). CONCLUSIONS: The accuracy of CACS quantification and classification based on PureCalcium reconstructions of CCTA outperforms CACS derived from VNC reconstructions.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]