OBJECTIVE: The Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis is a longitudinal study evaluating determinants of future cardiac events and progression of atherosclerosis. Emerging data are showing that coronary artery calcification (CAC) is a robust independent predictor of future cardiac events and that measurement of progression depends on reproducibility of the measure. Reproducibility previously was reported on baseline scans obtained with both electron-beam tomography (EBT) and MDCT. The aim of this study was to compare the interscan variability for both Agatston and volume scores derived with newer (16- and 64-MDCT) scanners with that derived with older scanners in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: The participants in this study were 4,054 persons who underwent dual scanning with EBT (n = 1,716), 4-MDCT (n = 370), 16-MDCT (n = 1,245), or 64-MDCT (n = 723). Agreement on the presence or absence of CAC was assessed with logistic regression models adjusted for age, sex, body mass index, and scanner type. Among participants with CAC, the log-transformed interscan difference was regressed on log-transformed amount of CAC, age, sex, and body mass index. RESULTS: The percentage agreement for the presence or absence of CAC was high and similar across scanner groups (EBT, 16-MDCT, and 64-MDCT). The greatest adjusted average absolute CAC differences between scans were found with the Aquilion 64 (24%; 95% CI, 20.9-27.6) and LightSpeed Pro 16 (19%; 95% CI, 17.4-21.0) scanners, both differences being significantly greater than with the EBT scanner (16%; 95% CI, 15.4-17.5) (p < 0.05). No differences were found between the EBT, Sensation 16, and Sensation 64 scanners. For volume score, the Aquilion 64 was the only scanner with significantly greater average absolute interscan differences than the EBT scanner (p < 0.001). Volume scoring resulted in lower rescan differences for all scanners. CONCLUSION: For CAC scoring, interscan variability with newer-generation MDCT scanners was similar to but not superior to that with the EBT scanner.
OBJECTIVE: The Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis is a longitudinal study evaluating determinants of future cardiac events and progression of atherosclerosis. Emerging data are showing that coronary artery calcification (CAC) is a robust independent predictor of future cardiac events and that measurement of progression depends on reproducibility of the measure. Reproducibility previously was reported on baseline scans obtained with both electron-beam tomography (EBT) and MDCT. The aim of this study was to compare the interscan variability for both Agatston and volume scores derived with newer (16- and 64-MDCT) scanners with that derived with older scanners in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: The participants in this study were 4,054 persons who underwent dual scanning with EBT (n = 1,716), 4-MDCT (n = 370), 16-MDCT (n = 1,245), or 64-MDCT (n = 723). Agreement on the presence or absence of CAC was assessed with logistic regression models adjusted for age, sex, body mass index, and scanner type. Among participants with CAC, the log-transformed interscan difference was regressed on log-transformed amount of CAC, age, sex, and body mass index. RESULTS: The percentage agreement for the presence or absence of CAC was high and similar across scanner groups (EBT, 16-MDCT, and 64-MDCT). The greatest adjusted average absolute CAC differences between scans were found with the Aquilion 64 (24%; 95% CI, 20.9-27.6) and LightSpeed Pro 16 (19%; 95% CI, 17.4-21.0) scanners, both differences being significantly greater than with the EBT scanner (16%; 95% CI, 15.4-17.5) (p < 0.05). No differences were found between the EBT, Sensation 16, and Sensation 64 scanners. For volume score, the Aquilion 64 was the only scanner with significantly greater average absolute interscan differences than the EBT scanner (p < 0.001). Volume scoring resulted in lower rescan differences for all scanners. CONCLUSION: For CAC scoring, interscan variability with newer-generation MDCT scanners was similar to but not superior to that with the EBT scanner.
Authors: Jasmin Divers; Lynne E Wagenknecht; Donald W Bowden; J Jeffrey Carr; R Caresse Hightower; Thomas C Register; Jianzhao Xu; Carl D Langefeld; Barry I Freedman Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2010-09-01 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Michael G Silverman; Michael J Blaha; Harlan M Krumholz; Matthew J Budoff; Ron Blankstein; Christopher T Sibley; Arthur Agatston; Roger S Blumenthal; Khurram Nasir Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2013-12-23 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Mingxia Yuan; Fang-Chi Hsu; Donald W Bowden; Jianzhao Xu; S Carrie Smith; Lynne E Wagenknecht; Mary E Comeau; Jasmin Divers; Thomas C Register; J Jeffrey Carr; Carl D Langefeld; Barry I Freedman Journal: Obesity (Silver Spring) Date: 2016-06-29 Impact factor: 5.002
Authors: Lisa B VanWagner; Hongyan Ning; Cora E Lewis; Christina M Shay; John Wilkins; J Jeffrey Carr; James G Terry; Donald M Lloyd-Jones; David R Jacobs; Mercedes R Carnethon Journal: Atherosclerosis Date: 2014-06-10 Impact factor: 5.162
Authors: Seamus P Whelton; Khurram Nasir; Michael J Blaha; Heidi Gransar; Thomas S Metkus; Josef Coresh; Daniel S Berman; Roger S Blumenthal Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes Date: 2012-07-01
Authors: Joel D Kaufman; Sara D Adar; R Graham Barr; Matthew Budoff; Gregory L Burke; Cynthia L Curl; Martha L Daviglus; Ana V Diez Roux; Amanda J Gassett; David R Jacobs; Richard Kronmal; Timothy V Larson; Ana Navas-Acien; Casey Olives; Paul D Sampson; Lianne Sheppard; David S Siscovick; James H Stein; Adam A Szpiro; Karol E Watson Journal: Lancet Date: 2016-05-24 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Jasmin Divers; Lynne E Wagenknecht; Donald W Bowden; J Jeffrey Carr; R Caresse Hightower; Jianzhao Xu; Carl D Langefeld; Barry I Freedman Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2009-10-13 Impact factor: 19.112