BACKGROUND: Two-dimensional axial and manually-oriented reformatted images are traditionally used to analyze coronary data provided by multidetector-row computed tomography angiography (MDCTA). While apparently more accurate in evaluating calcified vessels, 2D methods are time-consuming compared with automated 3D approaches. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the performance of a modified automated 3D approach (using manual vessel isolation and different window and level settings) in a population with high calcium scores who underwent coronary half-millimeter 16-detector-row CT angiography (16 x 0.5-MDCTA). METHODS: ECG-gated 16 x 0.5-MDCTA (16 x 0.5 mm cross-sections, 0.35 x 0.35 x 0.35 mm3 isotropic voxels, 400 ms rotation) was performed after injection of iopamidol (120-ml, 300 mg/ml) in 19 consecutive patients (11 male, 62+/-10 years-old). Native arteries were independently evaluated for >or=50%-stenoses using both manual 2D and modified automated 3D approaches. Stents and bypass grafts were excluded. Conventional coronary angiography was visually analyzed by 2 observers. RESULTS: Median Agatston calcium score was 434. Sensitivities, specificities, positive and negative predictive values for detection of >or=50% coronary stenoses using the 2D and modified 3D approaches were, respectively: 74%/63%, 76%/80%, 45%/34%, and 91%/93% (p=NS for all comparisons). Overall diagnostic accuracies were 75 and 78%, respectively (p=NS). Uninterpretable vessels were, respectively: 37% (77/209) and 35% (73/209) - p=NS. Time to analyze a single study was 160+/-23 and 53+/-11 min, respectively (p<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: This modified automated 3D approach is equivalent to and significantly less time consuming than the traditional manual 2D method for evaluation of >or=50%-stenoses by 16 x 0.5-MDCTA in native coronary arteries of patients with high calcium scores.
BACKGROUND: Two-dimensional axial and manually-oriented reformatted images are traditionally used to analyze coronary data provided by multidetector-row computed tomography angiography (MDCTA). While apparently more accurate in evaluating calcified vessels, 2D methods are time-consuming compared with automated 3D approaches. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the performance of a modified automated 3D approach (using manual vessel isolation and different window and level settings) in a population with high calcium scores who underwent coronary half-millimeter 16-detector-row CT angiography (16 x 0.5-MDCTA). METHODS: ECG-gated 16 x 0.5-MDCTA (16 x 0.5 mm cross-sections, 0.35 x 0.35 x 0.35 mm3 isotropic voxels, 400 ms rotation) was performed after injection of iopamidol (120-ml, 300 mg/ml) in 19 consecutive patients (11 male, 62+/-10 years-old). Native arteries were independently evaluated for >or=50%-stenoses using both manual 2D and modified automated 3D approaches. Stents and bypass grafts were excluded. Conventional coronary angiography was visually analyzed by 2 observers. RESULTS: Median Agatston calcium score was 434. Sensitivities, specificities, positive and negative predictive values for detection of >or=50% coronary stenoses using the 2D and modified 3D approaches were, respectively: 74%/63%, 76%/80%, 45%/34%, and 91%/93% (p=NS for all comparisons). Overall diagnostic accuracies were 75 and 78%, respectively (p=NS). Uninterpretable vessels were, respectively: 37% (77/209) and 35% (73/209) - p=NS. Time to analyze a single study was 160+/-23 and 53+/-11 min, respectively (p<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: This modified automated 3D approach is equivalent to and significantly less time consuming than the traditional manual 2D method for evaluation of >or=50%-stenoses by 16 x 0.5-MDCTA in native coronary arteries of patients with high calcium scores.
Authors: T M Bashore; E R Bates; P B Berger; D A Clark; J T Cusma; G J Dehmer; M J Kern; W K Laskey; M P O'Laughlin; S Oesterle; J J Popma; R A O'Rourke; J Abrams; E R Bates; B R Brodie; P S Douglas; G Gregoratos; M A Hlatky; J S Hochman; S Kaul; C M Tracy; D D Waters; W L Winters Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2001-06-15 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: A Schmermund; D Baumgart; S Möhlenkamp; P Kriener; H Pump; D Grönemeyer; R Seibel; R Erbel Journal: Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol Date: 2001-03 Impact factor: 8.311
Authors: Koen Nieman; Filippo Cademartiri; Pedro A Lemos; Rolf Raaijmakers; Peter M T Pattynama; Pim J de Feyter Journal: Circulation Date: 2002-10-15 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Dieter Ropers; Ulrich Baum; Karsten Pohle; Katharina Anders; Stefan Ulzheimer; Bernd Ohnesorge; Christian Schlundt; Werner Bautz; Werner G Daniel; Stephan Achenbach Journal: Circulation Date: 2003-02-11 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Axel Kuettner; Andreas F Kopp; Stephen Schroeder; Thilo Rieger; Juergen Brunn; Christoph Meisner; Martin Heuschmid; Tobias Trabold; Christof Burgstahler; Jens Martensen; Wolfgang Schoebel; Hans-Konrad Selbmann; Claus D Claussen Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2004-03-03 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Marc Dewey; Michael Laule; Lasse Krug; Dirk Schnapauff; Patrik Rogalla; Wolfgang Rutsch; Bernd Hamm; Alexander Lembcke Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2004-04 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Gabija Pundziute; Joanne D Schuijf; Jeroen J Bax; Ernst E van der Wall Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2006-03-15 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Anja J Reimann; Ilias Tsiflikas; Harald Brodoefel; Michael Scheuering; Daniel Rinck; Andreas F Kopp; Claus D Claussen; Martin Heuschmid Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2008-09-28 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: M A S Cordeiro; J M Miller; A Schmidt; A C Lardo; B D Rosen; D E Bush; J A Brinker; D A Bluemke; E P Shapiro; J A C Lima Journal: Heart Date: 2005-10-26 Impact factor: 5.994
Authors: Martijn A M den Dekker; Kristof de Smet; Geertruida H de Bock; Rene A Tio; Matthijs Oudkerk; Rozemarijn Vliegenthart Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2012-07-15 Impact factor: 5.315