OBJECTIVE: We compared electron beam CT with conventional CT to determine the best method for the assessment of the coronary calcium score. We used conventional CT to examine symptomatic and asymptomatic patients suspected of having coronary artery disease. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: One hundred sixty male patients underwent electron beam CT and helical CT with a pitch of 1 (n = 30) and 2 (n = 30) and using a single-slice mode with (n = 50) and without (n = 50) prospective ECG triggering. In another 50 patients, we determined reproducibility for repeated scanning using electron beam CT. For all images, we derived the calcium score according to the Agatston method. We performed regression analysis and determined mean variability. Mean variability was calculated as the ratio of the absolute difference to the mean of the corresponding calcium scores. RESULTS: The correlation coefficients for electron beam CT and all conventional CT modes were very high (range, 0.93-0.98). The mean variability was highest in the helical mode with a pitch of 2 (61.4%) and lowest for the single-slice mode with prospective ECG triggering (25.4%). For repeated electron beam CT, the correlation coefficient and mean variability were 0.99 and 22.1%, respectively. CONCLUSION: ECG-triggered single-slice conventional CT had the best agreement with electron beam CT calcium scores.
OBJECTIVE: We compared electron beam CT with conventional CT to determine the best method for the assessment of the coronary calcium score. We used conventional CT to examine symptomatic and asymptomatic patients suspected of having coronary artery disease. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: One hundred sixty male patients underwent electron beam CT and helical CT with a pitch of 1 (n = 30) and 2 (n = 30) and using a single-slice mode with (n = 50) and without (n = 50) prospective ECG triggering. In another 50 patients, we determined reproducibility for repeated scanning using electron beam CT. For all images, we derived the calcium score according to the Agatston method. We performed regression analysis and determined mean variability. Mean variability was calculated as the ratio of the absolute difference to the mean of the corresponding calcium scores. RESULTS: The correlation coefficients for electron beam CT and all conventional CT modes were very high (range, 0.93-0.98). The mean variability was highest in the helical mode with a pitch of 2 (61.4%) and lowest for the single-slice mode with prospective ECG triggering (25.4%). For repeated electron beam CT, the correlation coefficient and mean variability were 0.99 and 22.1%, respectively. CONCLUSION: ECG-triggered single-slice conventional CT had the best agreement with electron beam CT calcium scores.
Authors: J J Carr; J A Danitschek; D C Goff; J R Crouse; R D'Agostino; M Y Chen; G L Burke Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2001-06 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: N Reinsch; A A Mahabadi; N Lehmann; S Möhlenkamp; C Hoefs; B Sievers; T Budde; R Seibel; K-H Jöckel; R Erbel Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2011-10-18 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Georg Mühlenbruch; Ernst Klotz; Joachim E Wildberger; Ralf Koos; Marco Das; Matthias Niethammer; Christian Hohl; Dagmar Honnef; Christoph Thomas; Rolf W Günther; Andreas H Mahnken Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2006-07-04 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Andreas Knez; Christoph Becker; Alexander Becker; Alexander Leber; Carl White; Maximilian Reiser; Gerhard Steinbeck Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2002-08 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Tobias F Jakobs; Bernd J Wintersperger; Peter Herzog; Thomas Flohr; Christoph Suess; Andreas Knez; Maximilian F Reiser; Christoph R Becker Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2003-05-21 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Christiane A Geluk; Riksta Dikkers; Patrick J Perik; René A Tio; Marco J W Götte; Hans L Hillege; Rozemarijn Vliegenthart; Janneke B Houwers; Tineke P Willems; Matthijs Oudkerk; Felix Zijlstra Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2007-09-28 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Noortje van der Bijl; Paul W de Bruin; Jacob Geleijns; Jeroen J Bax; Joanne D Schuijf; Albert de Roos; Lucia J M Kroft Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2010-01-14 Impact factor: 2.357