Literature DB >> 18038190

Calcium scoring using 64-slice MDCT, dual source CT and EBT: a comparative phantom study.

Jaap M Groen1, Marcel J W Greuter, R Vliegenthart, C Suess, B Schmidt, F Zijlstra, M Oudkerk.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Assessment of calcium scoring (Ca-scoring) on a 64-slice multi-detector computed tomography (MDCT) scanner, a dual-source computed tomography (DSCT) scanner and an electron beam tomography (EBT) scanner with a moving cardiac phantom as a function of heart rate, slice thickness and calcium density. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Three artificial arteries with inserted calcifications of different sizes and densities were scanned at rest (0 beats per minute) and at 50-110 beats per minute (bpm) with an interval of 10 bpm using 64-slice MDCT, DSCT and EBT. Images were reconstructed with a slice thickness of 0.6 and 3.0 mm. Agatston score, volume score and equivalent mass score were determined for each artery. A cardiac motion susceptibility (CMS) index was introduced to assess the susceptibility of Ca-scoring to heart rate. In addition, a difference (Delta) index was introduced to assess the difference of absolute Ca-scoring on MDCT and DSCT with EBT.
RESULTS: Ca-score is relatively constant up to 60 bpm and starts to decrease or increase above 70 bpm, depending on scoring method, calcification density and slice thickness. EBT showed the least susceptibility to cardiac motion with the smallest average CMS-index (2.5). The average CMS-index of 64-slice MDCT (9.0) is approximately 2.5 times the average CMS-index of DSCT (3.6). The use of a smaller slice thickness decreases the CMS-index for both CT-modalities. The Delta-index for DSCT at 0.6 mm (53.2) is approximately 30% lower than the Delta-index for 64-slice MDCT at 0.6 mm (72.0). The Delta-indexes at 3.0 mm are approximately equal for both modalities (96.9 and 102.0 for 64-slice MDCT and DSCT respectively).
CONCLUSION: Ca-scoring is influenced by heart rate, slice thickness and modality used. Ca-scoring on DSCT is approximately 50% less susceptible to cardiac motion as 64-slice MDCT. DSCT offers a better approximation of absolute calcium score on EBT than 64-slice MDCT when using a smaller slice thickness. A smaller slice thickness reduces the susceptibility to cardiac motion and reduces the difference between CT-data and EBT-data. The best approximation of EBT on CT is found for DSCT with a slice thickness of 0.6 mm.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2007        PMID: 18038190      PMCID: PMC2373860          DOI: 10.1007/s10554-007-9282-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Cardiovasc Imaging        ISSN: 1569-5794            Impact factor:   2.357


  22 in total

1.  Impact of motion artefact on the measurement of coronary calcium score.

Authors:  S J Brown; M P Hayball; R A Coulden
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2000-09       Impact factor: 3.039

2.  In-plane coronary arterial motion velocity: measurement with electron-beam CT.

Authors:  S Achenbach; D Ropers; J Holle; G Muschiol; W G Daniel; W Moshage
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2000-08       Impact factor: 11.105

3.  Reproducibility of coronary calcium quantification in repeat examinations with retrospectively ECG-gated multisection spiral CT.

Authors:  B Ohnesorge; T Flohr; R Fischbach; A F Kopp; A Knez; S Schröder; U J Schöpf; A Crispin; E Klotz; M F Reiser; C R Becker
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2002-04-19       Impact factor: 5.315

4.  Electron beam CT versus 16-MDCT on the variability of repeated coronary artery calcium measurements in a variable heart rate phantom.

Authors:  Jun Horiguchi; Yun Shen; Yuji Akiyama; Nobuhiko Hirai; Kousuke Sasaki; Minoru Ishifuro; Tadashi Nakanishi; Katsuhide Ito
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2005-10       Impact factor: 3.959

5.  Electron beam CT versus 16-slice spiral CT: how accurately can we measure coronary artery calcium volume?

Authors:  Jun Horiguchi; Yun Shen; Yuji Akiyama; Nobuhiko Hirai; Kousuke Sasaki; Minoru Ishifuro; Katsuhide Ito
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2005-09-21       Impact factor: 5.315

6.  Measuring coronary calcium on CT images adjusted for attenuation differences.

Authors:  Jennifer Clark Nelson; Richard A Kronmal; J Jeffrey Carr; Michael F McNitt-Gray; Nathan D Wong; Catherine M Loria; Jonathan G Goldin; O Dale Williams; Robert Detrano
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2005-05       Impact factor: 11.105

7.  Rates of progression of coronary calcium by electron beam tomography.

Authors:  M J Budoff; K L Lane; H Bakhsheshi; S Mao; B O Grassmann; B C Friedman; B H Brundage
Journal:  Am J Cardiol       Date:  2000-07-01       Impact factor: 2.778

8.  Coronary artery calcium quantification at multi-detector row helical CT versus electron-beam CT.

Authors:  William Stanford; Brad H Thompson; Trudy L Burns; Scot D Heery; Mary C Burr
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2004-02       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 9.  Coronary artery calcium and its relationship to coronary artery disease.

Authors:  Axel Schmermund; Stefan Möhlenkamp; Raimund Erbel
Journal:  Cardiol Clin       Date:  2003-11       Impact factor: 2.213

10.  Vascular calcification in ex vivo carotid specimens: precision and accuracy of measurements with multi-detector row CT.

Authors:  Udo Hoffmann; Dylan C Kwait; Jason Handwerker; Raymond Chan; Glenn Lamuraglia; Thomas J Brady
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2003-10-02       Impact factor: 11.105

View more
  31 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.  Comparison of dual-source and electron-beam CT for the assessment of coronary artery calcium scoring.

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

3.  Computerized method for evaluating diagnostic image quality of calcified plaque images in cardiac CT: validation on a physical dynamic cardiac phantom.

Authors:  Martin King; Zachary Rodgers; Maryellen L Giger; Dianna M E Bardo; Amit R Patel
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2010-11       Impact factor: 4.071

4.  Non-significant left main disease; truly non-significant?

Authors:  E E van der Wall; J D Schuijf; J W Jukema; J J Bax; M J Schalij
Journal:  Int J Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2009-02-17       Impact factor: 2.357

5.  Coronary artery calcium screening: sufficient evidence for accurate risk assessment?

Authors:  Ernst E van der Wall; Joanne D Schuijf; J Wouter Jukema; Jeroen J Bax
Journal:  Int J Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2008-08-12       Impact factor: 2.357

6.  CT angiography; useful in non-selected outpatients?

Authors:  E E van der Wall; J D Schuijf; M J Schalij; J W Jukema; J J Bax
Journal:  Int J Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2009-01-15       Impact factor: 2.357

7.  CT angiography; no collateral damage.

Authors:  E E van der Wall; J D Schuijf; J W Jukema; M J Schalij; J J Bax
Journal:  Int J Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2009-01-22       Impact factor: 2.357

8.  Coronary calcium mass scores measured by identical 64-slice MDCT scanners are comparable: a cardiac phantom study.

Authors:  Hildebrand Dijkstra; Marcel J W Greuter; Jaap M Groen; Rozemarijn Vliegenthart-Proença; Klaasjan W K Renema; Frank de Lange; Matthijs Oudkerk
Journal:  Int J Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2009-09-19       Impact factor: 2.357

9.  Low-dose CT angiography: sufficient contrast for vessel imaging?

Authors:  E E van der Wall; J D Schuijf; J J Bax
Journal:  Int J Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2009-05-15       Impact factor: 2.357

10.  CT perfusion angiography; beware of artifacts!

Authors:  E E van der Wall; J D Schuijf; J J Bax; J W Jukema; M J Schalij
Journal:  Int J Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2009-12-24       Impact factor: 2.357

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.