OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the performance of a computer-aided algorithm for automated stenosis detection at coronary CT angiography (cCTA). METHODS: We investigated 59 patients (38 men, mean age 58 +/- 12 years) who underwent cCTA and quantitative coronary angiography (QCA). All cCTA data sets were analyzed using a software algorithm for automated, without human interaction, detection of coronary artery stenosis. The performance of the algorithm for detection of stenosis of 50% or more was compared with QCA. RESULTS: QCA revealed a total of 38 stenoses of 50% or more of which the algorithm correctly identified 28 (74%). Overall, the automated detection algorithm had 74%/100% sensitivity, 83%/65% specificity, 46%/58% positive predictive value, and 94%/100% negative predictive value for diagnosing stenosis of 50% or more on per-vessel/per-patient analysis, respectively. There were 33 false positive detection marks (average 0.56/patient), of which 19 were associated with stenotic lesions of less than 50% on QCA and 14 were not associated with an atherosclerotic surrogate. CONCLUSION: Compared with QCA, the automated detection algorithm evaluated has relatively high accuracy for diagnosing significant coronary artery stenosis at cCTA. If used as a second reader, the high negative predictive value may further enhance the confidence of excluding significant stenosis based on a normal or near-normal cCTA study.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the performance of a computer-aided algorithm for automated stenosis detection at coronary CT angiography (cCTA). METHODS: We investigated 59 patients (38 men, mean age 58 +/- 12 years) who underwent cCTA and quantitative coronary angiography (QCA). All cCTA data sets were analyzed using a software algorithm for automated, without human interaction, detection of coronary artery stenosis. The performance of the algorithm for detection of stenosis of 50% or more was compared with QCA. RESULTS: QCA revealed a total of 38 stenoses of 50% or more of which the algorithm correctly identified 28 (74%). Overall, the automated detection algorithm had 74%/100% sensitivity, 83%/65% specificity, 46%/58% positive predictive value, and 94%/100% negative predictive value for diagnosing stenosis of 50% or more on per-vessel/per-patient analysis, respectively. There were 33 false positive detection marks (average 0.56/patient), of which 19 were associated with stenotic lesions of less than 50% on QCA and 14 were not associated with an atherosclerotic surrogate. CONCLUSION: Compared with QCA, the automated detection algorithm evaluated has relatively high accuracy for diagnosing significant coronary artery stenosis at cCTA. If used as a second reader, the high negative predictive value may further enhance the confidence of excluding significant stenosis based on a normal or near-normal cCTA study.
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: Udo Hoffmann; John T Nagurney; Fabian Moselewski; Antonio Pena; Maros Ferencik; Claudia U Chae; Ricardo C Cury; Javed Butler; Suhny Abbara; David F Brown; Alex Manini; John H Nichols; Stephan Achenbach; Thomas J Brady Journal: Circulation Date: 2006-10-30 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: U Joseph Schoepf; Alex C Schneider; Marco Das; Susan A Wood; Jugesh I Cheema; Philip Costello Journal: J Thorac Imaging Date: 2007-11 Impact factor: 3.000
Authors: Dongwoo Kang; Damini Dey; Piotr J Slomka; Reza Arsanjani; Ryo Nakazato; Hyunsuk Ko; Daniel S Berman; Debiao Li; C-C Jay Kuo Journal: J Med Imaging (Bellingham) Date: 2015-03-06
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: E Arnoldi; I Ramos-Duran; J A Abro; P L Zwerner; K Nikolaou; M F Reiser; P Costello; U J Schoepf Journal: Radiologe Date: 2010-06 Impact factor: 0.635
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: Moshrik Abd Alamir; Pamela Noack; Kristine H Jang; Jhanna A Moore; Roman Goldberg; Michael Poon Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2018-04-25 Impact factor: 2.357