PURPOSE: Coronary artery calcium scoring can complement myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the feasibility and accuracy of using the CalciumScore-CT derived from a combined SPECT/CT device also for SPECT attenuation correction (AC). METHODS: The study group comprised 99 patients who underwent both post-stress and rest MPI using a two-slice SPECT/CT system. For AC, one of the two scans was accompanied by a CalciumScore-CT scan (CalciumScore-CTAC) and the other by a conventional spiral CT (AttenCorr-CT) scan (AttenCorr-CTAC). In 48 patients the CalciumScore-CT scan was acquired with the post-stress scan and the AttenCorr-CT scan with the rest scan, and in 51 patients the order was reversed. The accuracy of the images based on AC was determined qualitatively by consensus reading with respect to the clinical diagnoses as well as quantitatively by comparing the perfusion summed stress scores (SSS) and the summed rest scores (SRS) between attenuation-corrected and uncorrected images. RESULTS: In comparison to the uncorrected images CalciumScore-CTAC led to regional inaccuracies in 14 of 51 of studies (27.5%) versus 12 of 48 studies (25%) with AttenCorr-CTAC for the stress studies and in 5 of 48 (10%) versus 1 of 51 (2%) for the rest studies, respectively. This led to intermediate and definite changes in the final diagnosis (ischaemia and/or scarring) in 12% of the studies (12 of 99) and in 7% of the studies (7 of 99) with CalciumScore-CTAC and in 9% of the studies (9 of 99) and 4% of the studies (4 of 99) with AttenCorr-CTAC. Differences in SSS and SRS with respect to the uncorrected images were greater for the CalciumScore-CTAC images than for the AttenCorr-CTAC images (ΔSSS 4.5 ± 5.6 and 2.1 ± 4.4, p = 0.023; ΔSRS 4.2 ± 4.9 and 1.6 ± 3.2, p = 0.004, respectively). CONCLUSION: Using the same CT scan for calcium scoring and SPECT AC is feasible. Image interpretation must, however, include uncorrected images since CT-based AC relatively often introduces artefacts into the myocardial perfusion images. This effect is somewhat more pronounced with CalciumScore-CTAC than with AttenCorr-CTAC.
PURPOSE: Coronary artery calcium scoring can complement myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the feasibility and accuracy of using the CalciumScore-CT derived from a combined SPECT/CT device also for SPECT attenuation correction (AC). METHODS: The study group comprised 99 patients who underwent both post-stress and rest MPI using a two-slice SPECT/CT system. For AC, one of the two scans was accompanied by a CalciumScore-CT scan (CalciumScore-CTAC) and the other by a conventional spiral CT (AttenCorr-CT) scan (AttenCorr-CTAC). In 48 patients the CalciumScore-CT scan was acquired with the post-stress scan and the AttenCorr-CT scan with the rest scan, and in 51 patients the order was reversed. The accuracy of the images based on AC was determined qualitatively by consensus reading with respect to the clinical diagnoses as well as quantitatively by comparing the perfusion summed stress scores (SSS) and the summed rest scores (SRS) between attenuation-corrected and uncorrected images. RESULTS: In comparison to the uncorrected images CalciumScore-CTAC led to regional inaccuracies in 14 of 51 of studies (27.5%) versus 12 of 48 studies (25%) with AttenCorr-CTAC for the stress studies and in 5 of 48 (10%) versus 1 of 51 (2%) for the rest studies, respectively. This led to intermediate and definite changes in the final diagnosis (ischaemia and/or scarring) in 12% of the studies (12 of 99) and in 7% of the studies (7 of 99) with CalciumScore-CTAC and in 9% of the studies (9 of 99) and 4% of the studies (4 of 99) with AttenCorr-CTAC. Differences in SSS and SRS with respect to the uncorrected images were greater for the CalciumScore-CTAC images than for the AttenCorr-CTAC images (ΔSSS 4.5 ± 5.6 and 2.1 ± 4.4, p = 0.023; ΔSRS 4.2 ± 4.9 and 1.6 ± 3.2, p = 0.004, respectively). CONCLUSION: Using the same CT scan for calcium scoring and SPECT AC is feasible. Image interpretation must, however, include uncorrected images since CT-based AC relatively often introduces artefacts into the myocardial perfusion images. This effect is somewhat more pronounced with CalciumScore-CTAC than with AttenCorr-CTAC.
Authors: Manuel D Cerqueira; Neil J Weissman; Vasken Dilsizian; Alice K Jacobs; Sanjiv Kaul; Warren K Laskey; Dudley J Pennell; John A Rumberger; Thomas Ryan; Mario S Verani Journal: Circulation Date: 2002-01-29 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Michael K O'connor; Brad Kemp; Frank Anstett; Paul Christian; Edward P Ficaro; Eric Frey; Mark Jacobs; James N Kritzman; Robert A Pooley; Michael Wilk Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2002 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Yasmin Masood; Yi-Hwa Liu; Gordon Depuey; Raymond Taillefer; Luis I Araujo; Steven Allen; Dominique Delbeke; Frank Anstett; Aharon Peretz; Mary-Jo Zito; Vera Tsatkin; Frans J Th Wackers Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2005 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Andrew J Einstein; Lynne L Johnson; Sabahat Bokhari; Jessica Son; Randall C Thompson; Timothy M Bateman; Sean W Hayes; Daniel S Berman Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2010-11-30 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Mohammad Dawood; Thomas Kösters; Michael Fieseler; Florian Büther; Xiaoyi Jiang; Frank Wübbeling; Klaus P Schäfers Journal: Med Image Comput Comput Assist Interv Date: 2008
Authors: Robert Detrano; Alan D Guerci; J Jeffrey Carr; Diane E Bild; Gregory Burke; Aaron R Folsom; Kiang Liu; Steven Shea; Moyses Szklo; David A Bluemke; Daniel H O'Leary; Russell Tracy; Karol Watson; Nathan D Wong; Richard A Kronmal Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2008-03-27 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Dee Malkerneker; Reuven Brenner; William H Martin; Uchechukwu K A Sampson; Irene D Feurer; Marvin W Kronenberg; Dominique Delbeke Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2007-04-16 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Sebastian Lehner; Christian Sussebach; Andrei Todica; Christopher Uebleis; Stefan Brunner; Peter Bartenstein; Serge D Van Kriekinge; Guido Germano; Marcus Hacker Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2014-03-15 Impact factor: 5.952