AIM: To evaluate the feasibility of coronary artery calcium score (CACS) on low-dose non-gated chest CT (ngCCT). METHODS: Sixty consecutive individuals (30 males; 73 ± 7 years) scheduled for risk stratification by means of unenhanced ECG-triggered cardiac computed tomography (gCCT) underwent additional unenhanced ngCCT. All CT scans were performed on a 64-slice CT scanner (Somatom Sensation 64 Cardiac, Siemens, Germany). CACS was calculated using conventional methods/scores (Volume, Mass, Agatston) as previously described in literature. The CACS value obtained were compared. The Mayo Clinic classification was used to stratify cardiovascular risk based on Agatston CACS. Differences and correlations between the two methods were compared. A P-value < 0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: Mean CACS values were significantly higher for gCCT as compared to ngCCT (Volume: 418 ± 747 vs 332 ± 597; Mass: 89 ± 151 vs 78 ± 141; Agatston: 481 ± 854 vs 428 ± 776; P < 0.05). The correlation between the two values was always very high (Volume: r = 0.95; Mass: r = 0.97; Agatston: r = 0.98). Of the 6 patients with 0 Agatston score on gCCT, 2 (33%) showed an Agatston score > 0 in the ngCCT. Of the 3 patients with 1-10 Agatston score on gCCT, 1 (33%) showed an Agatston score of 0 in the ngCCT. Overall, 23 (38%) patients were reclassified in a different cardiovascular risk category, mostly (18/23; 78%) shifting to a lower risk in the ngCCT. The estimated radiation dose was significantly higher for gCCT (DLP 115.8 ± 50.7 vs 83.8 ± 16.3; Effective dose 1.6 ± 0.7 mSv vs 1.2 ± 0.2 mSv; P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: CACS assessment is feasible on ngCCT; the variability of CACS values and the associated re-stratification of patients in cardiovascular risk groups should be taken into account.
AIM: To evaluate the feasibility of coronary artery calcium score (CACS) on low-dose non-gated chest CT (ngCCT). METHODS: Sixty consecutive individuals (30 males; 73 ± 7 years) scheduled for risk stratification by means of unenhanced ECG-triggered cardiac computed tomography (gCCT) underwent additional unenhanced ngCCT. All CT scans were performed on a 64-slice CT scanner (Somatom Sensation 64 Cardiac, Siemens, Germany). CACS was calculated using conventional methods/scores (Volume, Mass, Agatston) as previously described in literature. The CACS value obtained were compared. The Mayo Clinic classification was used to stratify cardiovascular risk based on Agatston CACS. Differences and correlations between the two methods were compared. A P-value < 0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: Mean CACS values were significantly higher for gCCT as compared to ngCCT (Volume: 418 ± 747 vs 332 ± 597; Mass: 89 ± 151 vs 78 ± 141; Agatston: 481 ± 854 vs 428 ± 776; P < 0.05). The correlation between the two values was always very high (Volume: r = 0.95; Mass: r = 0.97; Agatston: r = 0.98). Of the 6 patients with 0 Agatston score on gCCT, 2 (33%) showed an Agatston score > 0 in the ngCCT. Of the 3 patients with 1-10 Agatston score on gCCT, 1 (33%) showed an Agatston score of 0 in the ngCCT. Overall, 23 (38%) patients were reclassified in a different cardiovascular risk category, mostly (18/23; 78%) shifting to a lower risk in the ngCCT. The estimated radiation dose was significantly higher for gCCT (DLP 115.8 ± 50.7 vs 83.8 ± 16.3; Effective dose 1.6 ± 0.7 mSv vs 1.2 ± 0.2 mSv; P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: CACS assessment is feasible on ngCCT; the variability of CACS values and the associated re-stratification of patients in cardiovascular risk groups should be taken into account.
Authors: B Ohnesorge; T Flohr; R Fischbach; A F Kopp; A Knez; S Schröder; U J Schöpf; A Crispin; E Klotz; M F Reiser; C R Becker Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2002-04-19 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Peter C Jacobs; Martijn J A Gondrie; Yolanda van der Graaf; Harry J de Koning; Ivana Isgum; Bram van Ginneken; Willem P T M Mali Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2012-03 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Philip Greenland; Joseph S Alpert; George A Beller; Emelia J Benjamin; Matthew J Budoff; Zahi A Fayad; Elyse Foster; Mark A Hlatky; John McB Hodgson; Frederick G Kushner; Michael S Lauer; Leslee J Shaw; Sidney C Smith; Allen J Taylor; William S Weintraub; Nanette K Wenger; Alice K Jacobs; Sidney C Smith; Jeffrey L Anderson; Nancy Albert; Christopher E Buller; Mark A Creager; Steven M Ettinger; Robert A Guyton; Jonathan L Halperin; Judith S Hochman; Frederick G Kushner; Rick Nishimura; E Magnus Ohman; Richard L Page; William G Stevenson; Lynn G Tarkington; Clyde W Yancy Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2010-12-14 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Bimal H Ashar; Mark T Hughes; Spyridon S Marinopoulos; Gregory P Prokopowicz; Gail V Berkenblit; Stephen D Sisson; Lisa A Simonson; Redonda G Miller Journal: Am J Manag Care Date: 2005-06 Impact factor: 2.229
Authors: Peter C Jacobs; Mathias Prokop; Yolanda van der Graaf; Martijn J Gondrie; Kristel J Janssen; Harry J de Koning; Ivana Isgum; Rob J van Klaveren; Matthijs Oudkerk; Bram van Ginneken; Willem P Mali Journal: Atherosclerosis Date: 2009-09-26 Impact factor: 5.162
Authors: Joseph Shemesh; Claudia I Henschke; Dorith Shaham; Rowena Yip; Ali O Farooqi; Matthew D Cham; Dorothy I McCauley; Mildred Chen; James P Smith; Daniel M Libby; Mark W Pasmantier; David F Yankelevitz Journal: Radiology Date: 2010-09-09 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Adam Leigh; John W McEvoy; Parveen Garg; J Jeffrey Carr; Veit Sandfort; Elizabeth C Oelsner; Matthew Budoff; David Herrington; Joseph Yeboah Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2018-02-14
Authors: Jan M Hughes-Austin; Arturo Dominguez; Matthew A Allison; Christina L Wassel; Dena E Rifkin; Cindy G Morgan; Michael R Daniels; Umaira Ikram; Jessica B Knox; C Michael Wright; Michael H Criqui; Joachim H Ix Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2016-01-06
Authors: Jordan Chamberlin; Madison R Kocher; Jeffrey Waltz; Madalyn Snoddy; Natalie F C Stringer; Joseph Stephenson; Pooyan Sahbaee; Puneet Sharma; Saikiran Rapaka; U Joseph Schoepf; Andres F Abadia; Jonathan Sperl; Phillip Hoelzer; Megan Mercer; Nayana Somayaji; Gilberto Aquino; Jeremy R Burt Journal: BMC Med Date: 2021-03-04 Impact factor: 8.775