OBJECTIVE: Cardiac CT allows the detection and quantification of coronary artery calcification (CAC). Electron-beam CT (EBCT) has been widely replaced by high-end CT generations in the assessment of CAC. The aim of this study was to compare the CAC scores derived from an EBCT with those from a dual-source CT (DSCT). METHODS: We retrospectively selected 92 patients (61 males; mean age, 60.7 ± 12 years) from our database, who underwent both EBCT and DSCT. CAC was assessed using the Agatston score by two independent readers (replicates: 1, 2; 3=mean of reading 1 and 2). RESULTS: EBCT scores were on average slightly higher than DSCT scores (281 ± 569 vs 241 ± 502; p<0.05). In regression analysis R(2)-values vary from 0.956 (1) to 0.966 (3). We calculated a correction factor as EBCT=(DSCT+1)(1.026)-1. When stratifying into CAC categories (0, 1-99, 100-399, 400-999 and ≥1000), 79 (86%) were correctly classified. From those with positive CAC scores, 7 out of 61 cases (11%, κ=0.81) were classified in different categories. Using the corrected DSCT CAC score, linear regression analysis for the comparison to the EBCT results were r=0.971 (p<0.001), with a mean difference of 6.4 ± 147.8. Five subjects (5.4%) were still classified in different categories (κ=0.84). CONCLUSION: CAC obtained from DSCT is highly correlated with the EBCT measures. Using the calculated correction factor, agreement only marginally improved the clinical interpretation of results. Overall, for clinical purposes, face value use of DSCT-derived values appears as useful as EBCT for CAC scoring.
OBJECTIVE: Cardiac CT allows the detection and quantification of coronary artery calcification (CAC). Electron-beam CT (EBCT) has been widely replaced by high-end CT generations in the assessment of CAC. The aim of this study was to compare the CAC scores derived from an EBCT with those from a dual-source CT (DSCT). METHODS: We retrospectively selected 92 patients (61 males; mean age, 60.7 ± 12 years) from our database, who underwent both EBCT and DSCT. CAC was assessed using the Agatston score by two independent readers (replicates: 1, 2; 3=mean of reading 1 and 2). RESULTS: EBCT scores were on average slightly higher than DSCT scores (281 ± 569 vs 241 ± 502; p<0.05). In regression analysis R(2)-values vary from 0.956 (1) to 0.966 (3). We calculated a correction factor as EBCT=(DSCT+1)(1.026)-1. When stratifying into CAC categories (0, 1-99, 100-399, 400-999 and ≥1000), 79 (86%) were correctly classified. From those with positive CAC scores, 7 out of 61 cases (11%, κ=0.81) were classified in different categories. Using the corrected DSCT CAC score, linear regression analysis for the comparison to the EBCT results were r=0.971 (p<0.001), with a mean difference of 6.4 ± 147.8. Five subjects (5.4%) were still classified in different categories (κ=0.84). CONCLUSION: CAC obtained from DSCT is highly correlated with the EBCT measures. Using the calculated correction factor, agreement only marginally improved the clinical interpretation of results. Overall, for clinical purposes, face value use of DSCT-derived values appears as useful as EBCT for CAC scoring.
Authors: Anthony L Daniell; Nathan D Wong; John D Friedman; Nachum Ben-Yosef; Romalisa Miranda-Peats; Sean W Hayes; Xingping Kang; Maria G Sciammarella; Ling de Yang; Guido Germano; Daniel S Berman Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2005-12 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Matthew J Budoff; Stephan Achenbach; Roger S Blumenthal; J Jeffrey Carr; Jonathan G Goldin; Philip Greenland; Alan D Guerci; Joao A C Lima; Daniel J Rader; Geoffrey D Rubin; Leslee J Shaw; Susan E Wiegers Journal: Circulation Date: 2006-10-02 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: T Schlosser; O K Mohrs; A Magedanz; B Nowak; T Voigtländer; J Barkhausen; A Schmermund Journal: Acta Radiol Date: 2007-04 Impact factor: 1.990
Authors: L Wexler; B Brundage; J Crouse; R Detrano; V Fuster; J Maddahi; J Rumberger; W Stanford; R White; K Taubert Journal: Circulation Date: 1996-09-01 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Stefan Möhlenkamp; Susanne Moebus; Axel Schmermund; Nils Lehmann; Barbara Hoffmann; Till Neumann; Andreas Stang; Nico Dragano; Gert Kerkhoff; Christoph Naber; Hagen Kälsch; Eva-Maria Beck; Martina Bröcker-Preuss; Knut Kröger; Thomas Budde; Johannes Siegrist; Klaus Mann; Karl-Heinz Jöckel; Raimund Erbel Journal: Herz Date: 2007-03 Impact factor: 1.443
Authors: Robert C Detrano; Melissa Anderson; Jennifer Nelson; Nathan D Wong; J Jeffrey Carr; Michael McNitt-Gray; Diane E Bild Journal: Radiology Date: 2005-06-21 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Jennifer Clark Nelson; Richard A Kronmal; J Jeffrey Carr; Michael F McNitt-Gray; Nathan D Wong; Catherine M Loria; Jonathan G Goldin; O Dale Williams; Robert Detrano Journal: Radiology Date: 2005-05 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Georg Mühlenbruch; Christoph Thomas; Joachim E Wildberger; Ralf Koos; Marco Das; Christian Hohl; Marcus Katoh; Rolf W Günther; Andreas H Mahnken Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2005-11 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Raimund Erbel; Nils Lehmann; Sofia Churzidse; Michael Rauwolf; Amir A Mahabadi; Stefan Möhlenkamp; Susanne Moebus; Marcus Bauer; Hagen Kälsch; Thomas Budde; Michael Montag; Axel Schmermund; Andreas Stang; Dagmar Führer-Sakel; Christian Weimar; Ulla Roggenbuck; Nico Dragano; Karl-Heinz Jöckel Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2014-07-25 Impact factor: 29.983