OBJECTIVES: To determine whether the quantification of iodine with stress dual-energy computed tomography (DECT-S) allows for the discrimination between a normal and an ischemic or necrotic myocardium using magnetic resonance (MR) as a reference. METHODS: This retrospective study was approved by the institutional review board, with waiver of informed consent. Thirty-six cardiac MR and DECT-S images from patients with suspected coronary artery disease were evaluated. Perfusion defects were visually determined, and myocardial iodine concentration was calculated by two observers using DECT colour-coded iodine maps. Iodine concentration differences were calculated using parametric tests. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was conducted to estimate the optimal iodine concentration threshold for discriminating pathologic myocardium. RESULTS: In total, 576 cardiac segments were evaluated. There were differences in mean iodine concentration (p < 0.001) between normal (2.56 ± 0.66 mg/mL), ischemic (1.98 ± 0.36 mg/dL) and infarcted segments (1.35 ± 0.57 mg/mL). A myocardium iodine concentration of 2.1 mg/mL represented the optimal threshold to discriminate between normal and pathologic myocardium (sensitivity 75 %, specificity 73.6 %, area under the curve 0.806). Excellent agreement was found in measured myocardium iodine concentration (intraclass correlation coefficient 0.814). CONCLUSION: Cardiac DECT-S with iodine quantification may be useful to differentiate healthy and ischemic or necrotic myocardium. KEY POINTS: • DECT-S allows for determination of myocardial iodine concentration as a quantitative perfusion parameter. • A high interobserver correlation exists in measuring myocardial iodine concentration with DECT-S. • Myocardial iodine concentration may be useful in the assessment of patients with CAD.
OBJECTIVES: To determine whether the quantification of iodine with stress dual-energy computed tomography (DECT-S) allows for the discrimination between a normal and an ischemic or necrotic myocardium using magnetic resonance (MR) as a reference. METHODS: This retrospective study was approved by the institutional review board, with waiver of informed consent. Thirty-six cardiac MR and DECT-S images from patients with suspected coronary artery disease were evaluated. Perfusion defects were visually determined, and myocardial iodine concentration was calculated by two observers using DECT colour-coded iodine maps. Iodine concentration differences were calculated using parametric tests. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was conducted to estimate the optimal iodine concentration threshold for discriminating pathologic myocardium. RESULTS: In total, 576 cardiac segments were evaluated. There were differences in mean iodine concentration (p < 0.001) between normal (2.56 ± 0.66 mg/mL), ischemic (1.98 ± 0.36 mg/dL) and infarcted segments (1.35 ± 0.57 mg/mL). A myocardium iodine concentration of 2.1 mg/mL represented the optimal threshold to discriminate between normal and pathologic myocardium (sensitivity 75 %, specificity 73.6 %, area under the curve 0.806). Excellent agreement was found in measured myocardium iodine concentration (intraclass correlation coefficient 0.814). CONCLUSION: Cardiac DECT-S with iodine quantification may be useful to differentiate healthy and ischemic or necrotic myocardium. KEY POINTS: • DECT-S allows for determination of myocardial iodine concentration as a quantitative perfusion parameter. • A high interobserver correlation exists in measuring myocardial iodine concentration with DECT-S. • Myocardial iodine concentration may be useful in the assessment of patients with CAD.
Authors: Tobias Pflederer; Mohamed Marwan; Alexandra Renz; Sven Bachmann; Dieter Ropers; Axel Kuettner; Katharina Anders; Fabian Bamberg; Werner G Daniel; Stephan Achenbach Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2009-01-24 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Hersh Chandarana; Alec J Megibow; Benjamin A Cohen; Ramya Srinivasan; Danny Kim; Christianne Leidecker; Michael Macari Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2011-06 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Sung Min Ko; Jin Woo Choi; Meong Gun Song; Je Kyoun Shin; Hyun Kun Chee; Hyun Woo Chung; Dong Hun Kim Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2010-07-25 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Fabian Bamberg; Alexander Becker; Florian Schwarz; Roy P Marcus; Martin Greif; Franz von Ziegler; Ron Blankstein; Udo Hoffmann; Wieland H Sommer; Verena S Hoffmann; Thorsten R C Johnson; Hans-Christoph R Becker; Bernd J Wintersperger; Maximilian F Reiser; Konstantin Nikolaou Journal: Radiology Date: 2011-09 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Balazs Ruzsics; Florian Schwarz; U Joseph Schoepf; Yeong Shyan Lee; Gorka Bastarrika; Salvatore A Chiaramida; Philip Costello; Peter L Zwerner Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2009-06-06 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: W Bob Meijboom; Carlos A G Van Mieghem; Niels van Pelt; Annick Weustink; Francesca Pugliese; Nico R Mollet; Eric Boersma; Eveline Regar; Robert J van Geuns; Peter J de Jaegere; Patrick W Serruys; Gabriel P Krestin; Pim J de Feyter Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2008-08-19 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: F Pugliese; A C Weustink; C Van Mieghem; F Alberghina; M Otsuka; W B Meijboom; N van Pelt; N R Mollet; F Cademartiri; G P Krestin; M G M Hunink; P J de Feyter Journal: Heart Date: 2007-09-19 Impact factor: 5.994
Authors: Leslee J Shaw; Daniel S Berman; David J Maron; G B John Mancini; Sean W Hayes; Pamela M Hartigan; William S Weintraub; Robert A O'Rourke; Marcin Dada; John A Spertus; Bernard R Chaitman; John Friedman; Piotr Slomka; Gary V Heller; Guido Germano; Gilbert Gosselin; Peter Berger; William J Kostuk; Ronald G Schwartz; Merill Knudtson; Emir Veledar; Eric R Bates; Benjamin McCallister; Koon K Teo; William E Boden Journal: Circulation Date: 2008-02-11 Impact factor: 29.690