Doo Kyoung Kang1, Nae Jung Im, Soon Mo Park, Hong Seok Lim. 1. Department of Radiology, Ajou University School of Medicine, San 5, Woncheon-dong, Yeongtong-gu, Suwon 443-721, South Korea. kdklsm@ajou.ac.kr
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the diagnostic performance of computerised quantification with visual assessment for the detection of significant coronary stenosis using MDCT, and to determine the impact of plaque composition on diagnostic procedure. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated 1564 coronary segments of 127 patients who underwent 64-slice MDCT and quantitative coronary angiography (QCA). The lesions were analysed with both methods of visual assessment and computerised quantification using an automatic vessel contour detection tool, and the results were compared with the QCA results. Plaques detected with MDCT were classified as calcified, mixed, and non-calcified according to plaque composition. RESULTS: The sensitivity and PPV of visual assessment (computerised quantification) were 95% (86%) and 76% (81%), respectively. Bland-Altman analysis demonstrated a mean difference of -5.2 ± 21.6% for all lesions, 2.2 ± 23.7 for calcified plaques, and -12.0 ± 17.2% for non-calcified plaques. The correlation coefficients and limits of agreement between CTA and QCA were 0.48 and ± 46.5% (0.74 and ± 33.7%) in the lesions with calcified plaques (non-calcified plaques). CONCLUSIONS: The computerised quantification decreases the sensitivity due to underestimation of non-calcified plaques compared with visual assessment, and had a poorer correlation and a larger limit of agreement in the lesions with calcified plaque compared with non-calcified plaques.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the diagnostic performance of computerised quantification with visual assessment for the detection of significant coronary stenosis using MDCT, and to determine the impact of plaque composition on diagnostic procedure. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated 1564 coronary segments of 127 patients who underwent 64-slice MDCT and quantitative coronary angiography (QCA). The lesions were analysed with both methods of visual assessment and computerised quantification using an automatic vessel contour detection tool, and the results were compared with the QCA results. Plaques detected with MDCT were classified as calcified, mixed, and non-calcified according to plaque composition. RESULTS: The sensitivity and PPV of visual assessment (computerised quantification) were 95% (86%) and 76% (81%), respectively. Bland-Altman analysis demonstrated a mean difference of -5.2 ± 21.6% for all lesions, 2.2 ± 23.7 for calcified plaques, and -12.0 ± 17.2% for non-calcified plaques. The correlation coefficients and limits of agreement between CTA and QCA were 0.48 and ± 46.5% (0.74 and ± 33.7%) in the lesions with calcified plaques (non-calcified plaques). CONCLUSIONS: The computerised quantification decreases the sensitivity due to underestimation of non-calcified plaques compared with visual assessment, and had a poorer correlation and a larger limit of agreement in the lesions with calcified plaque compared with non-calcified plaques.
Authors: G S Mintz; S E Nissen; W D Anderson; S R Bailey; R Erbel; P J Fitzgerald; F J Pinto; K Rosenfield; R J Siegel; E M Tuzcu; P G Yock Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2001-04 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: W G Austen; J E Edwards; R L Frye; G G Gensini; V L Gott; L S Griffith; D C McGoon; M L Murphy; B B Roe Journal: Circulation Date: 1975-04 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Marco A S Cordeiro; Albert C Lardo; Marcelo S V Brito; Miguel A Rosário Neto; Maria H A Siqueira; José R Parga; Luiz F Avila; José A F Ramires; João A C Lima; Carlos E Rochitte Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2006-03-15 Impact factor: 2.357
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: Lars Husmann; Oliver Gaemperli; Tiziano Schepis; Hans Scheffel; Ines Valenta; Tobias Hoefflinghaus; Paul Stolzmann; Lotus Desbiolles; Bernhard A Herzog; Sebastian Leschka; Borut Marincek; Hatem Alkadhi; Philipp A Kaufmann Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2008-06-19 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Dieter Ropers; Ulrich Baum; Karsten Pohle; Katharina Anders; Stefan Ulzheimer; Bernd Ohnesorge; Christian Schlundt; Werner Bautz; Werner G Daniel; Stephan Achenbach Journal: Circulation Date: 2003-02-11 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Young Jun Kim; Gong Yong Jin; Eun Young Kim; Young Min Han; Jei Keon Chae; Sang Rok Lee; Keun Sang Kwon Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2013-11-30 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Martina C de Knegt; Morten Haugen; Jesper J Linde; Jørgen Tobias Kühl; Børge G Nordestgaard; Lars V Køber; Jens D Hove; Klaus F Kofoed Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-12-14 Impact factor: 3.240