Lingyu Xu1, Yuancheng Xu2, Richard Coulden3, Emer Sonnex3, Stanislau Hrybouski4, Ian Paterson5, Craig Butler6. 1. Department of Cardiology, Mackenzie Health Science Centre, Faculty of Medicine & Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada; Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada; The second Affiliated Hospital, Shantou University Medical College, Shantou, Guangdong Province, China. 2. Department of Urology, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China. 3. Department of Radiology & Diagnostic Imaging, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. 4. Neuroscience and Mental Health Institute, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. 5. Department of Cardiology, Mackenzie Health Science Centre, Faculty of Medicine & Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. 6. Department of Cardiology, Mackenzie Health Science Centre, Faculty of Medicine & Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. Electronic address: Craig.Butler@albertahealthservices.ca.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Epicardial adipose tissue (EAT) volume derived from contrast enhanced (CE) computed tomography (CT) scans is not well validated. We aim to establish a reliable threshold to accurately quantify EAT volume from CE datasets. METHODS: We analyzed EAT volume on paired non-contrast (NC) and CE datasets from 25 patients to derive appropriate Hounsfield (HU) cutpoints to equalize two EAT volume estimates. The gold standard threshold (-190HU, -30HU) was used to assess EAT volume on NC datasets. For CE datasets, EAT volumes were estimated using three previously reported thresholds: (-190HU, -30HU), (-190HU, -15HU), (-175HU, -15HU) and were analyzed by a semi-automated 3D Fat analysis software. Subsequently, we applied a threshold correction to (-190HU, -30HU) based on mean differences in radiodensity between NC and CE images (ΔEATrd = CE radiodensity - NC radiodensity). We then validated our findings on EAT threshold in 21 additional patients with paired CT datasets. RESULTS: EAT volume from CE datasets using previously published thresholds consistently underestimated EAT volume from NC dataset standard by a magnitude of 8.2%-19.1%. Using our corrected threshold (-190HU, -3HU) in CE datasets yielded statistically identical EAT volume to NC EAT volume in the validation cohort (186.1 ± 80.3 vs. 185.5 ± 80.1 cm3, Δ = 0.6 cm3, 0.3%, p = 0.374). CONCLUSIONS: Estimating EAT volume from contrast enhanced CT scans using a corrected threshold of -190HU, -3HU provided excellent agreement with EAT volume from non-contrast CT scans using a standard threshold of -190HU, -30HU.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Epicardial adipose tissue (EAT) volume derived from contrast enhanced (CE) computed tomography (CT) scans is not well validated. We aim to establish a reliable threshold to accurately quantify EAT volume from CE datasets. METHODS: We analyzed EAT volume on paired non-contrast (NC) and CE datasets from 25 patients to derive appropriate Hounsfield (HU) cutpoints to equalize two EAT volume estimates. The gold standard threshold (-190HU, -30HU) was used to assess EAT volume on NC datasets. For CE datasets, EAT volumes were estimated using three previously reported thresholds: (-190HU, -30HU), (-190HU, -15HU), (-175HU, -15HU) and were analyzed by a semi-automated 3D Fat analysis software. Subsequently, we applied a threshold correction to (-190HU, -30HU) based on mean differences in radiodensity between NC and CE images (ΔEATrd = CE radiodensity - NC radiodensity). We then validated our findings on EAT threshold in 21 additional patients with paired CT datasets. RESULTS: EAT volume from CE datasets using previously published thresholds consistently underestimated EAT volume from NC dataset standard by a magnitude of 8.2%-19.1%. Using our corrected threshold (-190HU, -3HU) in CE datasets yielded statistically identical EAT volume to NC EAT volume in the validation cohort (186.1 ± 80.3 vs. 185.5 ± 80.1 cm3, Δ = 0.6 cm3, 0.3%, p = 0.374). CONCLUSIONS: Estimating EAT volume from contrast enhanced CT scans using a corrected threshold of -190HU, -3HU provided excellent agreement with EAT volume from non-contrast CT scans using a standard threshold of -190HU, -30HU.