OBJECTIVES: Performance evaluation of a fully automated system for calculating computed tomography (CT) coronary artery calcium scores from contrast medium-enhanced coronary CT angiography (cCTA) studies. METHODS: One hundred and twenty-seven patients (58 ± 11 years, 71 men) who had undergone cCTA as well as an unenhanced CT calcium scoring study where included. Calcium scores were computed from cCTA by an automated image processing algorithm and compared with calcium scores obtained by standard manual assessment of unenhanced CT calcium scoring studies. Results were compared vis-a-vis (1) absolute calcium score values, (2) age-, gender- and race-dependent percentiles, and (3) commonly used calcium score risk classification categories. RESULTS: One hundred and nineteen out of 127 (93.7%) studies were successfully processed. Mean Agatston calcium score values obtained by traditional non-contrast CT calcium scoring studies and derived from contrast medium-enhanced cCTA did not significantly differ (235.6 ± 430.5 vs 262.0 ± 499.5; P > 0.05). Calcium score risk categories and Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA) percentiles showed very high correlation (Spearman rank correlation coefficient = 0.97, P < 0.0001/0.95, P < 0.0001) between the two approaches. CONCLUSIONS: Calcium score values automatically computed from cCTA are highly correlated with standard unenhanced CT calcium scoring studies. These results suggest a radiation dose- and time-saving potential when deriving calcium scores from cCTA studies without a preceding unenhanced CT calcium scoring study.
OBJECTIVES: Performance evaluation of a fully automated system for calculating computed tomography (CT) coronary artery calcium scores from contrast medium-enhanced coronary CT angiography (cCTA) studies. METHODS: One hundred and twenty-seven patients (58 ± 11 years, 71 men) who had undergone cCTA as well as an unenhanced CT calcium scoring study where included. Calcium scores were computed from cCTA by an automated image processing algorithm and compared with calcium scores obtained by standard manual assessment of unenhanced CT calcium scoring studies. Results were compared vis-a-vis (1) absolute calcium score values, (2) age-, gender- and race-dependent percentiles, and (3) commonly used calcium score risk classification categories. RESULTS: One hundred and nineteen out of 127 (93.7%) studies were successfully processed. Mean Agatston calcium score values obtained by traditional non-contrast CT calcium scoring studies and derived from contrast medium-enhanced cCTA did not significantly differ (235.6 ± 430.5 vs 262.0 ± 499.5; P > 0.05). Calcium score risk categories and Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA) percentiles showed very high correlation (Spearman rank correlation coefficient = 0.97, P < 0.0001/0.95, P < 0.0001) between the two approaches. CONCLUSIONS:Calcium score values automatically computed from cCTA are highly correlated with standard unenhanced CT calcium scoring studies. These results suggest a radiation dose- and time-saving potential when deriving calcium scores from cCTA studies without a preceding unenhanced CT calcium scoring study.
Authors: Andreas H Mahnken; Joachim E Wildberger; Anil M Sinha; Thomas Flohr; Huu T Truong; Gabriele A Krombach; Rolf W Gunther Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2002-09 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Allen J Taylor; Manuel Cerqueira; John McB Hodgson; Daniel Mark; James Min; Patrick O'Gara; Geoffrey D Rubin; Christopher M Kramer; Daniel Berman; Alan Brown; Farooq A Chaudhry; Ricardo C Cury; Milind Y Desai; Andrew J Einstein; Antoinette S Gomes; Robert Harrington; Udo Hoffmann; Rahul Khare; John Lesser; Christopher McGann; Alan Rosenberg; Robert Schwartz; Marc Shelton; Gerald W Smetana; Sidney C Smith Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2010-11-23 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Tamar S Polonsky; Robyn L McClelland; Neal W Jorgensen; Diane E Bild; Gregory L Burke; Alan D Guerci; Philip Greenland Journal: JAMA Date: 2010-04-28 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Raimund Erbel; Stefan Möhlenkamp; Susanne Moebus; Axel Schmermund; Nils Lehmann; Andreas Stang; Nico Dragano; Dietrich Grönemeyer; Rainer Seibel; Hagen Kälsch; Martina Bröcker-Preuss; Klaus Mann; Johannes Siegrist; Karl-Heinz Jöckel Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2010-10-19 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Tessa S S Genders; Francesca Pugliese; Nico R Mollet; W Bob Meijboom; Annick C Weustink; Carlos A G van Mieghem; Pim J de Feyter; M G Myriam Hunink Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2010-06-18 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Wehab Ahmed; Michiel A de Graaf; Alexander Broersen; Pieter H Kitslaar; Elco Oost; Jouke Dijkstra; Jeroen J Bax; Johan H C Reiber; Arthur J Scholte Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2014-08-27 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Tobias A Fuchs; Julia Stehli; Svetlana Dougoud; Bert-Ram Sah; Sacha Bull; Olivier F Clerc; Mathias Possner; Ronny R Buechel; Oliver Gaemperli; Philipp A Kaufmann Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2014-07-04 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Christopher W Pavitt; Katie Harron; Alistair C Lindsay; Sayeh Zielke; Robin Ray; Daniel Gordon; Michael B Rubens; Simon P Padley; Edward D Nicol Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2015-08-09 Impact factor: 5.315
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
Authors: Wei Wang; Yan E Zhao; Li Qi; Chang Sheng Zhou; Meng Jie Lu; Jian Xin Yang; Long Jiang Zhang; Guang Ming Lu Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2020-07-13 Impact factor: 3.411