Georg Apfaltrer1,2, Moritz H Albrecht1,3, U Joseph Schoepf4,5,6, Taylor M Duguay1, Carlo N De Cecco1, John W Nance1, Domenico De Santis1,7, Paul Apfaltrer1,8, Marwen H Eid1, Chelsea D Eason1, Zachary M Thompson1, Maximilian J Bauer1, Akos Varga-Szemes1, Brian E Jacobs1, Erich Sorantin2, Christian Tesche1,9. 1. Division of Cardiovascular Imaging, Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA. 2. Division of Paediatric Radiology, Department of Radiology, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria. 3. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany. 4. Division of Cardiovascular Imaging, Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA. schoepf@musc.edu. 5. Division of Cardiology, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA. schoepf@musc.edu. 6. Heart and Vascular Center, Medical University of South Carolina, Ashley River Tower, 25 Courtenay Drive, Charleston, SC, 29425-2260, USA. schoepf@musc.edu. 7. Department of Radiological Sciences, Oncology and Pathology, University of Rome "Sapienza", Rome, Italy. 8. Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-guided Therapy, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. 9. Department of Cardiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Heart Center Munich-Bogenhausen, Munich, Germany.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To investigate diagnostic accuracy and radiation dose of high-pitch CT coronary artery calcium scoring (CACS) with tin filtration (Sn100kVp) versus standard 120kVp high-pitch acquisition. METHODS: 78 patients (58% male, 61.5±9.1 years) were prospectively enrolled. Subjects underwent clinical 120kVp high-pitch CACS using third-generation dual-source CT followed by additional high-pitch Sn100kVp acquisition. Agatston scores, calcium volume scores, Agatston score categories, percentile-based risk categorization and radiation metrics were compared. RESULTS: 61/78 patients showed coronary calcifications. Median Agatston scores were 34.9 [0.7-197.1] and 41.7 [0.7-207.2] and calcium volume scores were 34.1 [0.7-218.0] for Sn100kVp and 35.7 [1.1-221.0] for 120kVp acquisitions, respectively (both p<0.0001). Bland-Altman analysis revealed underestimated Agatston scores and calcium volume scores with Sn100kVp versus 120kVp acquisitions (mean difference: 16.4 and 11.5). However, Agatston score categories and percentile-based risk categories showed excellent agreement (ĸ=0.98 and ĸ=0.99). Image noise was 25.8±4.4HU and 16.6±2.9HU in Sn100kVp and 120kVp scans, respectively (p<0.0001). Dose-length-product was 9.9±4.8mGy*cm and 40.9±14.4mGy*cm with Sn100kVp and 120kVp scans, respectively (p<0.0001). This resulted in significant effective radiation dose reduction (0.13±0.07mSv vs. 0.57±0.2mSv, p<0.0001) for Sn100kVp acquisitions. CONCLUSION: CACS using high-pitch low-voltage tin-filtered acquisitions demonstrates excellent agreement in Agatston score and percentile-based cardiac risk categorization with standard 120kVp high-pitch acquisitions. Furthermore, radiation dose was significantly reduced by 78% while maintaining accurate risk prediction. KEY POINTS: • Coronary artery calcium scoring with tin filtration reduces radiation dose by 78%. • There is excellent correlation between high-pitch Sn100kVp and standard 120kVp acquisitions. • Excellent agreement regarding Agatston score categories and percentile-based risk categorization was achieved. • No cardiac risk reclassifications were observed using Sn100kVp coronary artery calcium scoring.
OBJECTIVES: To investigate diagnostic accuracy and radiation dose of high-pitch CT coronary artery calcium scoring (CACS) with tin filtration (Sn100kVp) versus standard 120kVp high-pitch acquisition. METHODS: 78 patients (58% male, 61.5±9.1 years) were prospectively enrolled. Subjects underwent clinical 120kVp high-pitch CACS using third-generation dual-source CT followed by additional high-pitch Sn100kVp acquisition. Agatston scores, calcium volume scores, Agatston score categories, percentile-based risk categorization and radiation metrics were compared. RESULTS: 61/78 patients showed coronary calcifications. Median Agatston scores were 34.9 [0.7-197.1] and 41.7 [0.7-207.2] and calcium volume scores were 34.1 [0.7-218.0] for Sn100kVp and 35.7 [1.1-221.0] for 120kVp acquisitions, respectively (both p<0.0001). Bland-Altman analysis revealed underestimated Agatston scores and calcium volume scores with Sn100kVp versus 120kVp acquisitions (mean difference: 16.4 and 11.5). However, Agatston score categories and percentile-based risk categories showed excellent agreement (ĸ=0.98 and ĸ=0.99). Image noise was 25.8±4.4HU and 16.6±2.9HU in Sn100kVp and 120kVp scans, respectively (p<0.0001). Dose-length-product was 9.9±4.8mGy*cm and 40.9±14.4mGy*cm with Sn100kVp and 120kVp scans, respectively (p<0.0001). This resulted in significant effective radiation dose reduction (0.13±0.07mSv vs. 0.57±0.2mSv, p<0.0001) for Sn100kVp acquisitions. CONCLUSION: CACS using high-pitch low-voltage tin-filtered acquisitions demonstrates excellent agreement in Agatston score and percentile-based cardiac risk categorization with standard 120kVp high-pitch acquisitions. Furthermore, radiation dose was significantly reduced by 78% while maintaining accurate risk prediction. KEY POINTS: • Coronary artery calcium scoring with tin filtration reduces radiation dose by 78%. • There is excellent correlation between high-pitch Sn100kVp and standard 120kVp acquisitions. • Excellent agreement regarding Agatston score categories and percentile-based risk categorization was achieved. • No cardiac risk reclassifications were observed using Sn100kVp coronary artery calcium scoring.
Authors: Ryo Nakazato; Damini Dey; Ariel Gutstein; Ludovic Le Meunier; Victor Y Cheng; Raymond Pimentel; William Paz; Sean W Hayes; Louise E J Thomson; John D Friedman; Daniel S Berman Journal: J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr Date: 2009-10-13
Authors: Christian Tesche; Carlo N De Cecco; U Joseph Schoepf; Taylor M Duguay; Moritz H Albrecht; Damiano Caruso; Akos Varga-Szemes; Virginia W Lesslie; Ullrich Ebersberger; Christian Canstein; Christian Thilo; Ellen Hoffmann; Thomas Allmendinger; John W Nance Journal: J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr Date: 2017-07-24
Authors: Christian Tesche; Carlo N De Cecco; Rozemarijn Vliegenthart; Moritz H Albrecht; Akos Varga-Szemes; Taylor M Duguay; Ullrich Ebersberger; Richard R Bayer; Christian Canstein; Bernhard Schmidt; Thomas Allmendinger; Sheldon E Litwin; Pamela B Morris; Thomas G Flohr; Ellen Hoffmann; U Joseph Schoepf Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2016-11-16 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Mathias Meyer; Holger Haubenreisser; U Joseph Schoepf; Rozemarijn Vliegenthart; Christianne Leidecker; Thomas Allmendinger; Ralf Lehmann; Sonja Sudarski; Martin Borggrefe; Stefan O Schoenberg; Thomas Henzler Journal: Radiology Date: 2014-05-31 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Wei-Hua Yin; Bin Lu; Nan Li; Lei Han; Zhi-Hui Hou; Run-Ze Wu; Yong-Jian Wu; Hong-Xia Niu; Shi-Liang Jiang; Aleksander W Krazinski; Ullrich Ebersberger; Felix G Meinel; U Joseph Schoepf Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2013-10-23
Authors: S Baumann; D Overhoff; C Tesche; G Korosoglou; S Kelle; M Nassar; S J Buss; F Andre; M Renker; U J Schoepf; I Akin; S Waldeck; S O Schoenberg; D Lossnitzer Journal: Herz Date: 2022-03-04 Impact factor: 1.443