BACKGROUND: Epicardial fat volume (EFV) measured from noncontrast CT is associated with coronary atherosclerosis and increased risk of major adverse cardiovascular events. Interscan reproducibility of EFV quantification from noncontrast CT has not been reported. OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the interscan (intrascanner and interscanner) reproducibility of EFV and thoracic fat volume (TFV) measurements from noncontrast CT. METHODS: We studied 25 consecutive patients who were scanned twice with 4-slice multidetector CT (MDCT), with 120 kVp, 2.5-mm slice thickness (intrascanner) and 23 consecutive patients who were scanned with MDCT and electron beam CT (EBCT) with 3-mm slice thickness (interscanner). For each scan, EFV and TFV were measured from user-defined range of CT slices covering the heart by experienced imaging cardiologists. Voxels within -30 to -190 HU within the epicardial contours was quantified as EFV. TFV was quantified within the heart range automatically. Repeatability coefficient (RC), defined as 1.96 × SD of the differences between pairs of repeated measures, was determined. RESULTS: Correlations for interscan measurements of EFV and TFV were high for both intrascanner (MDCT-MDCT) and interscanner (EBCT-MDCT) data (correlation coefficient ≥0.98). RC values were lowest (4.3% for EFV and 5.4% for TFV) for intrascanner same-observer measurement. For intrascanner cross-observer measurement, RC values were 10.7% for EFV and 9.0% for TFV. For interscanner data, RC values ranged from 6.8% to 8.2%. CONCLUSION: Epicardial and thoracic fat measurements with the use of either MDCT or EBCT are highly reproducible.
BACKGROUND: Epicardial fat volume (EFV) measured from noncontrast CT is associated with coronary atherosclerosis and increased risk of major adverse cardiovascular events. Interscan reproducibility of EFV quantification from noncontrast CT has not been reported. OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the interscan (intrascanner and interscanner) reproducibility of EFV and thoracic fat volume (TFV) measurements from noncontrast CT. METHODS: We studied 25 consecutive patients who were scanned twice with 4-slice multidetector CT (MDCT), with 120 kVp, 2.5-mm slice thickness (intrascanner) and 23 consecutive patients who were scanned with MDCT and electron beam CT (EBCT) with 3-mm slice thickness (interscanner). For each scan, EFV and TFV were measured from user-defined range of CT slices covering the heart by experienced imaging cardiologists. Voxels within -30 to -190 HU within the epicardial contours was quantified as EFV. TFV was quantified within the heart range automatically. Repeatability coefficient (RC), defined as 1.96 × SD of the differences between pairs of repeated measures, was determined. RESULTS: Correlations for interscan measurements of EFV and TFV were high for both intrascanner (MDCT-MDCT) and interscanner (EBCT-MDCT) data (correlation coefficient ≥0.98). RC values were lowest (4.3% for EFV and 5.4% for TFV) for intrascanner same-observer measurement. For intrascanner cross-observer measurement, RC values were 10.7% for EFV and 9.0% for TFV. For interscanner data, RC values ranged from 6.8% to 8.2%. CONCLUSION: Epicardial and thoracic fat measurements with the use of either MDCT or EBCT are highly reproducible.
Authors: Thomas G Flohr; U Joseph Schoepf; Axel Kuettner; Sandra Halliburton; Herbert Bruder; Christoph Suess; Bernhard Schmidt; Lars Hofmann; Edgar Kent Yucel; Stefan Schaller; Bernd M Ohnesorge Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2003-04 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Peter Hunold; Florian M Vogt; Axel Schmermund; Jörg F Debatin; Gert Kerkhoff; Thomas Budde; Raimund Erbel; Klaus Ewen; Jörg Barkhausen Journal: Radiology Date: 2003-01 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Balaji Tamarappoo; Damini Dey; Haim Shmilovich; Ryo Nakazato; Heidi Gransar; Victor Y Cheng; John D Friedman; Sean W Hayes; Louise E J Thomson; Piotr J Slomka; Alan Rozanski; Daniel S Berman Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2010-11
Authors: Tomasz Mazurek; LiFeng Zhang; Andrew Zalewski; John D Mannion; James T Diehl; Hwyda Arafat; Lea Sarov-Blat; Shawn O'Brien; Elizabeth A Keiper; Anthony G Johnson; Jack Martin; Barry J Goldstein; Yi Shi Journal: Circulation Date: 2003-10-27 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Rami Homsi; Michael Meier-Schroers; Jürgen Gieseke; Darius Dabir; Julian A Luetkens; Daniel L Kuetting; Claas P Naehle; Christian Marx; Hans H Schild; Daniel K Thomas; Alois M Sprinkart Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2015-09-30 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Andrew H Talman; Peter J Psaltis; James D Cameron; Ian T Meredith; Sujith K Seneviratne; Dennis T L Wong Journal: Cardiovasc Diagn Ther Date: 2014-12
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: Jon D Klingensmith; Addison L Elliott; Amy H Givan; Zechariah D Faszold; Cory L Mahan; Adam M Doedtman; Maria Fernandez-Del-Valle Journal: J Med Imaging (Bellingham) Date: 2019-02-07
Authors: Ryo Nakazato; Ronak Rajani; Victor Y Cheng; Haim Shmilovich; Rine Nakanishi; Yuka Otaki; Heidi Gransar; Piotr J Slomka; Sean W Hayes; Louise E J Thomson; John D Friedman; Nathan D Wong; Leslee J Shaw; Matthew Budoff; Alan Rozanski; Daniel S Berman; Damini Dey Journal: Atherosclerosis Date: 2011-10-20 Impact factor: 5.162
Authors: Luigia D'Errico; Francesco Salituri; Marco Ciardetti; Riccardo Favilla; Alessandro Mazzarisi; Giuseppe Coppini; Carlo Bartolozzi; Paoli Marraccini Journal: Quant Imaging Med Surg Date: 2017-06
Authors: Ronak Rajani; Haim Shmilovich; Ryo Nakazato; Rine Nakanishi; Yuka Otaki; Victor Y Cheng; Sean W Hayes; Louise E J Thomson; John D Friedman; Piotr J Slomka; James K Min; Daniel S Berman; Damini Dey Journal: J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr Date: 2013-03-15
Authors: Peter J Psaltis; Andrew H Talman; Kiran Munnur; James D Cameron; Brian S H Ko; Ian T Meredith; Sujith K Seneviratne; Dennis T L Wong Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2015-09-03 Impact factor: 2.357