OBJECTIVE: To analyze the diagnostic efficacy of computer aided analysis of relevant coronary artery stenosis using dual source computed tomography (DSCT). METHODS: In a larger scale study patients scheduled for conventional coronary angiography (CA) were additionally examined with DSCT. Based on a 13-segment model 30 CT scans of this study population were analyzed for significant stenosis using conventional 3D charts (3D) as well as a specialized cardiac analysis tool (CAT). Diagnostic accuracy and time to diagnosis was recorded for each vessel separately as well as the three readers' confidence. RESULTS: With severe coronary artery calcifications, 53 false interpretations of segments were found for the total of 390 coronary segments analyzed. 3D and CAT analysis showed a Sensitivity, Specificity, PPV and NPV of 0.59, 0.91, 0.57, 0.92 and 0.57, 0.92, 0.56, 0.92, respectively. No significant differences in diagnostic accuracy could be found between 3D and CAT (P = 0.1667). 3D took a mean of 5.2 min (3-10 min). With CAT a mean time of 8.2 min (4-12 min) was needed. No significant inter-reader time differences (P = 0.4954) and no significant confidence level differences were found between readers and analyzes. CONCLUSION: CAT of the coronary tree shows comparable accuracy to manual 3D analysis but needs improvements concerning coronary tree segmentation times.
OBJECTIVE: To analyze the diagnostic efficacy of computer aided analysis of relevant coronary artery stenosis using dual source computed tomography (DSCT). METHODS: In a larger scale study patients scheduled for conventional coronary angiography (CA) were additionally examined with DSCT. Based on a 13-segment model 30 CT scans of this study population were analyzed for significant stenosis using conventional 3D charts (3D) as well as a specialized cardiac analysis tool (CAT). Diagnostic accuracy and time to diagnosis was recorded for each vessel separately as well as the three readers' confidence. RESULTS: With severe coronary artery calcifications, 53 false interpretations of segments were found for the total of 390 coronary segments analyzed. 3D and CAT analysis showed a Sensitivity, Specificity, PPV and NPV of 0.59, 0.91, 0.57, 0.92 and 0.57, 0.92, 0.56, 0.92, respectively. No significant differences in diagnostic accuracy could be found between 3D and CAT (P = 0.1667). 3D took a mean of 5.2 min (3-10 min). With CAT a mean time of 8.2 min (4-12 min) was needed. No significant inter-reader time differences (P = 0.4954) and no significant confidence level differences were found between readers and analyzes. CONCLUSION: CAT of the coronary tree shows comparable accuracy to manual 3D analysis but needs improvements concerning coronary tree segmentation times.
Authors: Stavroula G R Mougiakakou; Spyretta Golemati; Ioannis Gousias; Andrew N Nicolaides; Konstantina S Nikita Journal: Ultrasound Med Biol Date: 2007-01 Impact factor: 2.998
Authors: Stephanie Busch; Thorsten R C Johnson; Konstantin Nikolaou; Franz von Ziegler; Andreas Knez; Maximilian F Reiser; Christoph R Becker Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2006-12-16 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Christian Thilo; Mulugeta Gebregziabher; Felix G Meinel; Roman Goldenberg; John W Nance; Elisabeth M Arnoldi; Lashonda D Soma; Ullrich Ebersberger; Philip Blanke; Richard L Coursey; Michael A Rosenblum; Peter L Zwerner; U Joseph Schoepf Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2014-10-15 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Matthias Rief; Anisha Kranz; Lisa Hartmann; Robert Roehle; Michael Laule; Marc Dewey Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2014-08-13 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Elisabeth Arnoldi; Mulugeta Gebregziabher; U Joseph Schoepf; Roman Goldenberg; Luis Ramos-Duran; Peter L Zwerner; Konstantin Nikolaou; Maximilian F Reiser; Philip Costello; Christian Thilo Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2009-11-05 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Alexander J Abramowicz; Melissa A Daubert; Vinay Malhotra; Summer Ferraro; Joshua Ring; Roman Goldenberg; Michael Kam; Henley Wu; Donna Kam; Aimee Minton; Michael Poon Journal: Heart Int Date: 2013-01-22