| Literature DB >> 27636027 |
Rolf Symons1, Justin Z Morris1, Colin O Wu1, Amir Pourmorteza1, Mark A Ahlman1, João A C Lima1, Marcus Y Chen1, Marissa Mallek1, Veit Sandfort1, David A Bluemke1.
Abstract
Purpose To determine reader and computed tomography (CT) scan variability for measurement of coronary plaque volume. Materials and Methods This HIPAA-compliant study followed Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy guidelines. Baseline coronary CT angiography was performed in 40 prospectively enrolled subjects (mean age, 67 years ± 6 [standard deviation]) with asymptomatic hyperlipidemia by using a 320-detector row scanner (Aquilion One Vision; Toshiba, Otawara, Japan). Twenty of these subjects underwent coronary CT angiography repeated on a separate day with the same CT scanner (Toshiba, group 1); 20 subjects underwent repeat CT performed with a different CT scanner (Somatom Force; Siemens, Forchheim, Germany [group 2]). Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and Bland-Altman analysis were used to assess interreader, intrareader, and interstudy reproducibility. Results Baseline and repeat coronary CT angiography scans were acquired within 19 days ± 6. Interreader and intrareader agreement rates were high for total, calcified, and noncalcified plaques for both CT scanners (all ICCs ≥ 0.96) without bias. Scanner variability was ±18.4% (coefficient of variation) with same-vendor follow-up. However, scanner variability increased to ±29.9% with different-vendor follow-up. The sample size to detect a 5% change in noncalcified plaque volume with 90% power and an α error of .05 was 286 subjects for same-CT scanner follow-up and 753 subjects with different-vendor follow-up. Conclusion State-of-the-art coronary CT angiography with same-vendor follow-up has good scan-rescan reproducibility, suggesting a role of coronary CT angiography in monitoring coronary artery plaque response to therapy. Differences between coronary CT angiography vendors resulted in lower scan-rescan reproducibility. © RSNA, 2016 Online supplemental material is available for this article.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27636027 PMCID: PMC5131836 DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2016161670
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Radiology ISSN: 0033-8419 Impact factor: 11.105