Andreas M Bucher1, U Joseph Schoepf2, Aleksander W Krazinski3, Justin Silverman3, James V Spearman3, Carlo N De Cecco4, Felix G Meinel5, Thomas J Vogl6, Lucas L Geyer5. 1. Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA; Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Clinic of the Goethe University, Frankfurt, Germany. 2. Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA; Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA. Electronic address: schoepf@musc.edu. 3. Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA. 4. Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA; Department of Radiological Sciences, Oncology and Pathology, University of Rome "Sapienza" - Polo Pontino, Latina, Italy. 5. Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA; Institute for Clinical Radiology, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Hospital, Munich, Germany. 6. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Clinic of the Goethe University, Frankfurt, Germany.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To systematically analyze the influence of technical parameters on quantification of epicardial fat volume (EATV) at cardiac CT. METHODS: 153 routine cardiac CT data sets were analyzed using three-dimensional pericardial border delineation. Three image series were reconstructed per patient: (a) CTAD: coronary CT angiography (CTA), diastolic phase; (b) CTAS: coronary CTA, systolic phase; (c) CaScD: non-contrast CT, diastolic phase. EATV was calculated using three different upper thresholds (-15HU, -30 HU, -45HU). Repeated measures ANOVA, Spearman's rho, and Bland Altman plots were used. RESULTS: Mean EATV differed between all three image series at a -30HU threshold (CTAD 87.2 ± 38.5 ml, CTAS 90.9 ± 37.7 ml, CaScD 130.7 ± 49.5 ml, P<0.001). EATV of diastolic and systolic CTA reconstructions did not differ significantly (P=0.225). Mean EATV for contrast enhanced CTA at a -15HU threshold (CTAD15 102.4 ± 43.6 ml, CTAS15 105.3 ± 42.3 ml) could be approximated most closely by non-contrast CT at -45HU threshold (CaScD45 105.3 ± 40.8 ml). The correlation was excellent: CTAS15-CTAD15, rho=0.943; CTAD15-CaScD45, rho=0.905; CTAS15-CaScD45, rho=0.924; each P<0.001). Bias values from Bland Altman Analysis were: CTAS15-CTAD15, 4.9%; CTAD15-CaScD45, -4.3%; CTAS15-CaScD45, 0.6%. CONCLUSIONS: Measured EATV can differ substantially between contrast enhanced and non-contrast CT studies, which can be reconciled by threshold modification. Heart cycle phase does not significantly influence EATV measurements.
OBJECTIVES: To systematically analyze the influence of technical parameters on quantification of epicardial fat volume (EATV) at cardiac CT. METHODS: 153 routine cardiac CT data sets were analyzed using three-dimensional pericardial border delineation. Three image series were reconstructed per patient: (a) CTAD: coronary CT angiography (CTA), diastolic phase; (b) CTAS: coronary CTA, systolic phase; (c) CaScD: non-contrast CT, diastolic phase. EATV was calculated using three different upper thresholds (-15HU, -30 HU, -45HU). Repeated measures ANOVA, Spearman's rho, and Bland Altman plots were used. RESULTS: Mean EATV differed between all three image series at a -30HU threshold (CTAD 87.2 ± 38.5 ml, CTAS 90.9 ± 37.7 ml, CaScD 130.7 ± 49.5 ml, P<0.001). EATV of diastolic and systolic CTA reconstructions did not differ significantly (P=0.225). Mean EATV for contrast enhanced CTA at a -15HU threshold (CTAD15 102.4 ± 43.6 ml, CTAS15 105.3 ± 42.3 ml) could be approximated most closely by non-contrast CT at -45HU threshold (CaScD45 105.3 ± 40.8 ml). The correlation was excellent: CTAS15-CTAD15, rho=0.943; CTAD15-CaScD45, rho=0.905; CTAS15-CaScD45, rho=0.924; each P<0.001). Bias values from Bland Altman Analysis were: CTAS15-CTAD15, 4.9%; CTAD15-CaScD45, -4.3%; CTAS15-CaScD45, 0.6%. CONCLUSIONS: Measured EATV can differ substantially between contrast enhanced and non-contrast CT studies, which can be reconciled by threshold modification. Heart cycle phase does not significantly influence EATV measurements.
Authors: Benjamin D Long; Jadranka Stojanovska; Richard K J Brown; Anil K Attili; Eizabeth A Jackson; Vladimir Ognenovski Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2017-08-26 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Nitesh Nerlekar; Adam J Brown; Rahul G Muthalaly; Andrew Talman; Thushan Hettige; James D Cameron; Dennis T L Wong Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2017-08-23 Impact factor: 5.501