BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: We aimed to assess the usefulness of a threshold-based, 3-dimensional (3D) segmentation in comparison with the traditional 2-dimensional (2D) short axis-based method for measurement of epicardial fat volume with 64-slice multidetector computed tomography (MDCT). SUBJECTS AND METHODS: One hundred patients (52 males; mean age, 58.36+/-11.0 years) who underwent coronary CT angiography were enrolled in this study. The epicardial fat volume was measured using the two methods. The existing method was the 2D short axis-based method and the new method was the threshold-based 3D segmentation. Pearson's correlation was used to compare the two measurement methods. We also assessed the relationship between the epicardial fat volume and coronary artery disease (CAD). RESULTS: There were a strong correlation between the epicardial fat volumes determined using the two methods (r=0.956, p<0.001). The mean overestimation of epicardial fat volume by the threshold-based 3D method was 59.89+/-12.00% compared to the 2D short-axis based method. Using the 3D method, the epicardial fat volume was significantly higher in the CAD group than in the controls (165.07+/-48.22 cm(3) vs. 108.39+/-48.03 cm(3), p<0.001). CONCLUSION: Threshold-based 3D segmentation is another easy and useful tool for measuring the epicardial fat volume.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: We aimed to assess the usefulness of a threshold-based, 3-dimensional (3D) segmentation in comparison with the traditional 2-dimensional (2D) short axis-based method for measurement of epicardial fat volume with 64-slice multidetector computed tomography (MDCT). SUBJECTS AND METHODS: One hundred patients (52 males; mean age, 58.36+/-11.0 years) who underwent coronary CT angiography were enrolled in this study. The epicardial fat volume was measured using the two methods. The existing method was the 2D short axis-based method and the new method was the threshold-based 3D segmentation. Pearson's correlation was used to compare the two measurement methods. We also assessed the relationship between the epicardial fat volume and coronary artery disease (CAD). RESULTS: There were a strong correlation between the epicardial fat volumes determined using the two methods (r=0.956, p<0.001). The mean overestimation of epicardial fat volume by the threshold-based 3D method was 59.89+/-12.00% compared to the 2D short-axis based method. Using the 3D method, the epicardial fat volume was significantly higher in the CAD group than in the controls (165.07+/-48.22 cm(3) vs. 108.39+/-48.03 cm(3), p<0.001). CONCLUSION: Threshold-based 3D segmentation is another easy and useful tool for measuring the epicardial fat volume.
Authors: Kai Uwe Juergens; Harald Seifarth; Felix Range; Susanne Wienbeck; Mirja Wenker; Walter Heindel; Roman Fischbach Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2008-02 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Petra M Gorter; Alexander M de Vos; Yolanda van der Graaf; Pieter R Stella; Pieter A Doevendans; Matthijs F L Meijs; Mathias Prokop; Frank L J Visseren Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2008-05-24 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Guido A Rosito; Joseph M Massaro; Udo Hoffmann; Frederick L Ruberg; Amir A Mahabadi; Ramachandran S Vasan; Christopher J O'Donnell; Caroline S Fox Journal: Circulation Date: 2008-01-22 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Petra M Gorter; Anne S R van Lindert; Alexander M de Vos; Matthijs F L Meijs; Yolanda van der Graaf; Pieter A Doevendans; Mathias Prokop; Frank L J Visseren Journal: Atherosclerosis Date: 2007-09-19 Impact factor: 5.162
Authors: Sanjay Sarin; Christopher Wenger; Ajay Marwaha; Anwer Qureshi; Bernard D M Go; Cathleen A Woomert; Karla Clark; Louis A Nassef; Jamshid Shirani Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2008-07-02 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Damien I Sequeira; Lars C Ebert; Patricia M Flach; Thomas D Ruder; Michael J Thali; Garyfalia Ampanozi Journal: Forensic Sci Med Pathol Date: 2015-02-25 Impact factor: 2.007
Authors: Kultigin Turkmen; Orhan Ozbek; Mehmet Kayrak; Cigdem Samur; Ibrahim Guler; Halil Zeki Tonbul Journal: Perit Dial Int Date: 2012-07-01 Impact factor: 1.756
Authors: Vincent Dunet; François Feihl; Amin Dabiri; Gilles Allenbach; Bernard Waeber; Raphaël Heinzer; John O Prior Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2015-08-19 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: James V Spearman; Felix G Meinel; U Joseph Schoepf; Paul Apfaltrer; Justin R Silverman; Aleksander W Krazinski; Christian Canstein; Carlo Nicola De Cecco; Philip Costello; Lucas L Geyer Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2013-11-06 Impact factor: 5.315