RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: To compare scoring threshold and calibration method-dependent accuracy and variability of coronary calcium measurements by multidetector computed tomography (MDCT). METHODS: Ninety-five subjects were scanned with MDCT. We calculated Agatston score and volume score. Mineral mass (MM) was calculated using patient-based and scanner-based calibration methods. Accuracy of calibration was validated using artificial calcium cylinders. RESULTS: Patient-based and scanner-based calibration permitted accurate quantification of artificial calcium cylinders (bias: 0 mg and -2 mg). In the subjects, the mean relative difference of MM measurements performed at 90 and 130 Hounsfield units threshold (59%) was lower than for Agatston score (94%) and volume score (109%; P < 0.05). Patient-based and scanner-based calibration yielded systematically different MM measurements (bias: 22%). CONCLUSIONS: MM lowers threshold-dependent variability of coronary calcium measurements. Patient-based and scanner-based calibration allows accurate calcium quantification ex vivo but reveal systematic differences in subjects. Patient-based calibration may better account for subject size and composition.
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: To compare scoring threshold and calibration method-dependent accuracy and variability of coronary calcium measurements by multidetector computed tomography (MDCT). METHODS: Ninety-five subjects were scanned with MDCT. We calculated Agatston score and volume score. Mineral mass (MM) was calculated using patient-based and scanner-based calibration methods. Accuracy of calibration was validated using artificial calcium cylinders. RESULTS:Patient-based and scanner-based calibration permitted accurate quantification of artificial calcium cylinders (bias: 0 mg and -2 mg). In the subjects, the mean relative difference of MM measurements performed at 90 and 130 Hounsfield units threshold (59%) was lower than for Agatston score (94%) and volume score (109%; P < 0.05). Patient-based and scanner-based calibration yielded systematically different MM measurements (bias: 22%). CONCLUSIONS: MM lowers threshold-dependent variability of coronary calcium measurements. Patient-based and scanner-based calibration allows accurate calcium quantification ex vivo but reveal systematic differences in subjects. Patient-based calibration may better account for subject size and composition.
Authors: Christopher J O'Donnell; M Kyla Shea; Paul A Price; David R Gagnon; Peter W F Wilson; Martin G Larson; Douglas P Kiel; Udo Hoffmann; Maros Ferencik; Melvin E Clouse; Matthew K Williamson; L Adrienne Cupples; Bess Dawson-Hughes; Sarah L Booth Journal: Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol Date: 2006-09-14 Impact factor: 8.311
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: Didem Yamak; William Pavlicek; Thomas Boltz; Prasad M Panse; David Frakes; Metin Akay Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2013-05-06 Impact factor: 2.102
Authors: Nils Lehmann; Raimund Erbel; Amir A Mahabadi; Michael Rauwolf; Stefan Möhlenkamp; Susanne Moebus; Hagen Kälsch; Thomas Budde; Axel Schmermund; Andreas Stang; Dagmar Führer-Sakel; Christian Weimar; Ulla Roggenbuck; Nico Dragano; Karl-Heinz Jöckel Journal: Circulation Date: 2017-11-15 Impact factor: 29.690