| Literature DB >> 31975332 |
Annemarie M den Harder1, Jelmer M Wolterink2, Jonas W Bartstra3, Wilko Spiering4, Sabine R Zwakenberg5, Joline W Beulens5,6, Riemer H J A Slart7, Gert Luurtsema7, Willem P Mali3, Pim A de Jong3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Microcalcifications cannot be identified with the present resolution of CT; however, 18F-sodium fluoride (18F-NaF) positron emission tomography (PET) imaging has been proposed for non-invasive identification of microcalcification. The primary objective of this study was to assess whether 18F-NaF activity can assess the presence and predict the progression of CT detectable vascular calcification. METHODS ANDEntities:
Keywords: Calcification; atherosclerosis; computed tomography; medial artery calcification; positron emission tomography
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 31975332 PMCID: PMC8648691 DOI: 10.1007/s12350-020-02031-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Nucl Cardiol ISSN: 1071-3581 Impact factor: 5.952
Figure 1Example of alignment. Example of alignment of baseline and follow-up acquisition using the amount of calcification. The continuous line shows calcification at baseline, and the dashed line represents the follow-up acquisition. In the upper figure (before translation), the two lines do not overlap. By moving the dashed follow-up line two slices to the left, a better fit is achieved
Baseline characteristics
| TEMP study | ||
|---|---|---|
| Per patient ( | Etidronate ( | Placebo ( |
| Age (years) | 56.7 ± 8.6 | 57.3 ± 8.1 |
| Gender (male) | 19 (53%) | 19 (53%) |
| BMI (kg · m2) | 26.6 ± 4.6 | 25.7 ± 3.3 |
| Systolic blood pressure (mmHg) | 143 ± 20 | 137 ± 18 |
| Diabetes Mellitus type 2 | 3 (8%) | 1 (3%) |
| Triglycerides (mmol · L−1) | 1.4 ± .8 | 1.5 ± 1.4 |
| Total cholesterol (mmol · L−1) | 5.2 ± 1.3 | 5.4 ± 1.4 |
| HDL (mmol · L−1) | 1.6 ± .5 | 1.5 ± .3 |
| LDL (mmol · L−1) | 3.0 ± 1.1 | 3.2 ± 1.1 |
| Creatinine level (µmol · L−1) | 71 ± 15 | 70 ± 13 |
| Number of slices | 3,189 (51%) | 3,105 (49%) |
Baseline characteristics of the TEMP and VITACAL study
BMI, Body Mass Index; TBR, Target to Background Ratio
Figure 2Flowchart of the TEMP and VITACAL study
Figure 3Correlation between calcium mass and TBR. Density plot of the correlation between the calcium mass at baseline and the TBR at baseline for the TEMP and VITACAL study
Multilevel linear regression model
| Variable | Regression coefficient | |
|---|---|---|
| TEMP study | ||
| Age (years) | 1.002 [.994–1.010] | .684 |
| Gender (male) | 1.028 [.878–1.204] | .738 |
| BMI (kg · m−2) | .987 [.970–1.004] | .141 |
| Creatinine level (µmol · L−1) | .997 [.992–1.003] | .369 |
| Baseline calcium mass | 1.006 [1.005–1.006] | < .001 |
| Delta calcium mass | 1.002 [1.002–1.003] | < .001 |
| VITACAL study | ||
| Age (years) | 1.002 [.994–1.010] | .443 |
| Gender (male) | 1.009 [.857–1.188] | .917 |
| BMI (kg · m−2) | 1.011 [.999–1.023] | .093 |
| Creatinine level (µmol · L−1) | .999 [.996–1.001] | .309 |
| Baseline calcium mass | 1.014 [1.013–1.014] | < .001 |
| Delta calcium mass | 1.006 [1.005–1.007] | < .001 |
Results of the multilevel linear regression model with TBR at baseline as dependent variable
Figure 418F-NaF activity and calcium progression. Relationship between baseline TBR and calcium progression in the placebo groups in slices without calcium at baseline. Slices in which calcium progression is seen at follow-up have a higher TBR at baseline in both studies (P < .001 in both studies). FU, Follow-Up; TBR, Target to Background Ratio
Figure 5Calcification progression in hottest slices. The figure shows the relationship between the TBR and the calcification progression (delta calcium mass) for hotspots compared to the other slices