OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was to compare MDCT with electron beam tomography (EBT) for the quantification of coronary artery calcification (CAC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty-eight patients underwent both MDCT and EBT within 2 months for the quantification of CAC. The images were scored in a blinded fashion and independently by two observers with a minimum of 7 days between the interpretations of images obtained from one scanner type to the other. RESULTS: Presence versus absence of CAC was discordant by EBT versus MDCT in 6% (n = 4) of the cases by observer 1, with one of these cases also discordant by observer 2. All cases except one (aortic calcium misidentified as CAC) were among those with a mean Agatston score of less than 5 present on EBT but absent on MDCT. EBT and MDCT scores correlated well (r = 0.98-0.99). The relative median variability between EBT and MDCT for the Agatston score was 24% for observer 1 and 27% for observer 2 and was 18% and 14%, respectively, for volume score (average for both observers: 27% for Agatston score and 16% for volume score). Scores were higher for EBT than MDCT in approximately half of the cases, with little systematic difference between the two (median EBT-MDCT difference: Agatston score, -0.55; volume score, 3.4 mm3). The absolute median difference averaged for the two observers was 28.75 for the Agatston score and 15.4 mm3 for the volume score. CONCLUSION: Differences in CAC measurements using EBT and MDCT are similar to interscan differences in CAC measurements previously reported for EBT or for other MDCT scanners individually.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was to compare MDCT with electron beam tomography (EBT) for the quantification of coronary artery calcification (CAC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty-eight patients underwent both MDCT and EBT within 2 months for the quantification of CAC. The images were scored in a blinded fashion and independently by two observers with a minimum of 7 days between the interpretations of images obtained from one scanner type to the other. RESULTS: Presence versus absence of CAC was discordant by EBT versus MDCT in 6% (n = 4) of the cases by observer 1, with one of these cases also discordant by observer 2. All cases except one (aortic calcium misidentified as CAC) were among those with a mean Agatston score of less than 5 present on EBT but absent on MDCT. EBT and MDCT scores correlated well (r = 0.98-0.99). The relative median variability between EBT and MDCT for the Agatston score was 24% for observer 1 and 27% for observer 2 and was 18% and 14%, respectively, for volume score (average for both observers: 27% for Agatston score and 16% for volume score). Scores were higher for EBT than MDCT in approximately half of the cases, with little systematic difference between the two (median EBT-MDCT difference: Agatston score, -0.55; volume score, 3.4 mm3). The absolute median difference averaged for the two observers was 28.75 for the Agatston score and 15.4 mm3 for the volume score. CONCLUSION: Differences in CAC measurements using EBT and MDCT are similar to interscan differences in CAC measurements previously reported for EBT or for other MDCT scanners individually.
Authors: Christopher J O'Donnell; Maryam Kavousi; Albert V Smith; Sharon L R Kardia; Mary F Feitosa; Shih-Jen Hwang; Yan V Sun; Michael A Province; Thor Aspelund; Abbas Dehghan; Udo Hoffmann; Lawrence F Bielak; Qunyuan Zhang; Gudny Eiriksdottir; Cornelia M van Duijn; Caroline S Fox; Mariza de Andrade; Aldi T Kraja; Sigurdur Sigurdsson; Suzette E Elias-Smale; Joanne M Murabito; Lenore J Launer; Aad van der Lugt; Sekar Kathiresan; Gabriel P Krestin; David M Herrington; Timothy D Howard; Yongmei Liu; Wendy Post; Braxton D Mitchell; Jeffrey R O'Connell; Haiqing Shen; Alan R Shuldiner; David Altshuler; Roberto Elosua; Veikko Salomaa; Stephen M Schwartz; David S Siscovick; Benjamin F Voight; Joshua C Bis; Nicole L Glazer; Bruce M Psaty; Eric Boerwinkle; Gerardo Heiss; Stefan Blankenberg; Tanja Zeller; Philipp S Wild; Renate B Schnabel; Arne Schillert; Andreas Ziegler; Thomas F Münzel; Charles C White; Jerome I Rotter; Michael Nalls; Matthijs Oudkerk; Andrew D Johnson; Anne B Newman; Andre G Uitterlinden; Joseph M Massaro; Julie Cunningham; Tamara B Harris; Albert Hofman; Patricia A Peyser; Ingrid B Borecki; L Adrienne Cupples; Vilmundur Gudnason; Jacqueline C M Witteman Journal: Circulation Date: 2011-12-05 Impact factor: 29.690
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: Matthijs Oudkerk; Arthur E Stillman; Sandra S Halliburton; Willi A Kalender; Stefan Möhlenkamp; Cynthia H McCollough; Rozemarijn Vliegenthart; Leslee J Shaw; William Stanford; Allen J Taylor; Peter M A van Ooijen; Lewis Wexler; Paolo Raggi Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2008-07-24 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Georg Mühlenbruch; Christian Hohl; Marco Das; Joachim E Wildberger; Christoph Suess; Ernst Klotz; Thomas Flohr; Ralf Koos; Christoph Thomas; Rolf W Günther; Andreas H Mahnken Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2007-02-17 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Omar Dzaye; Ramzi Dudum; Mohammadhassan Mirbolouk; Olusola A Orimoloye; Albert D Osei; Zeina A Dardari; Daniel S Berman; Michael D Miedema; Leslee Shaw; Alan Rozanski; Matthias Holdhoff; Khurram Nasir; John A Rumberger; Matthew J Budoff; Mouaz H Al-Mallah; Ron Blankstein; Michael J Blaha Journal: J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr Date: 2019-03-28
Authors: Matthijs Oudkerk; Arthur E Stillman; Sandra S Halliburton; Willi A Kalender; Stefan Möhlenkamp; Cynthia H McCollough; Rozemarijn Vliegenthart; Leslee J Shaw; William Stanford; Allen J Taylor; Peter M A van Ooijen; Lewis Wexler; Paolo Raggi Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2008-05-27 Impact factor: 2.357
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