OBJECTIVE: The purpose of our study was to establish the most suitable algorithm to compare coronary artery calcium measurements performed with electron beam CT and multirow detector CT for the assessment of coronary artery disease. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Coronary artery screening was performed in 100 patients with both electron beam and multirow detector CT. The images were transferred to a dedicated workstation for determination of the calcium score, volume, mass, density, and number of lesions. In addition to the traditional threshold of 130 H, the score of multirow detector CT studies was reevaluated at a threshold of 90 H. Fifty-nine of the patients underwent conventional coronary catheterization. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis of the different scoring algorithms for detection of significant coronary artery stenosis was performed. RESULTS: The correlation between electron beam CT and multirow detector CT was high for every quantification algorithm. Determination of the score and the number of lesions with multirow detector CT revealed a systematic error of the measurement compared with electron beam CT. The areas under the curve in the receiver operating characteristic curve analyses for electron beam and multirow detector CT were similar for the score, volume, and mass, whereas they were lower for the density. No significant difference was found for the areas under the curve between scores using a 130-H and those using a 90-H threshold. CONCLUSION: Volume and mass indexes are superior to the traditional score, density, and number of lesions for comparing the results of electron beam and multirow detector CT and for determining significant coronary artery disease.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of our study was to establish the most suitable algorithm to compare coronary artery calcium measurements performed with electron beam CT and multirow detector CT for the assessment of coronary artery disease. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Coronary artery screening was performed in 100 patients with both electron beam and multirow detector CT. The images were transferred to a dedicated workstation for determination of the calcium score, volume, mass, density, and number of lesions. In addition to the traditional threshold of 130 H, the score of multirow detector CT studies was reevaluated at a threshold of 90 H. Fifty-nine of the patients underwent conventional coronary catheterization. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis of the different scoring algorithms for detection of significant coronary artery stenosis was performed. RESULTS: The correlation between electron beam CT and multirow detector CT was high for every quantification algorithm. Determination of the score and the number of lesions with multirow detector CT revealed a systematic error of the measurement compared with electron beam CT. The areas under the curve in the receiver operating characteristic curve analyses for electron beam and multirow detector CT were similar for the score, volume, and mass, whereas they were lower for the density. No significant difference was found for the areas under the curve between scores using a 130-H and those using a 90-H threshold. CONCLUSION: Volume and mass indexes are superior to the traditional score, density, and number of lesions for comparing the results of electron beam and multirow detector CT and for determining significant coronary artery disease.
Authors: Ryo Nakazato; Haim Shmilovich; Balaji K Tamarappoo; Victor Y Cheng; Piotr J Slomka; Daniel S Berman; Damini Dey Journal: J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr Date: 2011-03-21
Authors: Christoph R Becker; Amal Majeed; Alexander Crispin; Andreas Knez; U Joseph Schoepf; Peter Boekstegers; Gerhard Steinbeck; Maximilian F Reiser Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2004-11-10 Impact factor: 5.315
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: Michael Rosol; Karina Sachdev; Christian N Enzweiler; Dylan C Kwait; Ryan Millea; James Titus; Jason Handwerker; Stephan Wicky; Stephen Achenbach; Thomas J Brady; Udo Hoffmann Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2005-12-20 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Arthur E Stillman; Matthijs Oudkerk; Margaret Ackerman; Christoph R Becker; Pawel E Buszman; Pim J de Feyter; Udo Hoffmann; Matthew T Keadey; Riccardo Marano; Martin J Lipton; Gilbert L Raff; Gautham P Reddy; Michael R Rees; Geoffrey D Rubin; U Joseph Schoepf; Giuseppe Tarulli; Edwin J R van Beek; Lewis Wexler; Charles S White Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2007-06-05 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Christopher Herzog; Martina Britten; Joern O Balzer; M G Mack; Stefan Zangos; Hanns Ackermann; Volker Schaechinger; Stefan Schaller; Thomas Flohr; Thomas J Vogl Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2003-12-20 Impact factor: 5.315