Literature DB >> 12960525

Coronary calcium quantification using various calibration phantoms and scoring thresholds.

Maros Ferencik1, Ashley Ferullo, Stephan Achenbach, Suhny Abbara, Raymond C Chan, Sarah L Booth, Thomas J Brady, Udo Hoffmann.   

Abstract

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.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12960525     DOI: 10.1097/01.RLI.0000073449.90302.75

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Invest Radiol        ISSN: 0020-9996            Impact factor:   6.016


  6 in total

Review 1.  Coronary artery calcium scoring and its impact on the clinical practice in the era of multidetector CT.

Authors:  Jongmin Lee
Journal:  Int J Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2011-10-20       Impact factor: 2.357

2.  Matrix Gla protein is associated with risk factors for atherosclerosis but not with coronary artery calcification.

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

3.  A novel model to test accuracy and reproducibility of MDCT scan protocols for coronary calcium in vivo.

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

4.  Coronary calcium quantification using contrast-enhanced dual-energy computed tomography scans.

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

5.  Value of Progression of Coronary Artery Calcification for Risk Prediction of Coronary and Cardiovascular Events: Result of the HNR Study (Heinz Nixdorf Recall).

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

Review 6.  Coronary artery calcium score: a review.

Authors:  Abbas Arjmand Shabestari
Journal:  Iran Red Crescent Med J       Date:  2013-12-05       Impact factor: 0.611

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.