Literature DB >> 35284280

An automated quantification method for the Agatston coronary artery calcium score on coronary computed tomography angiography.

Wenjia Wang1, Lin Yang2, Sicong Wang1, Qiong Wang2, Lei Xu2.   

Abstract

Background: A coronary artery calcium (CAC) score can provide supplementary information for predicting the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD). Although CAC is clinically measured with non-contrast cardiac computed tomography (CT), coronary CT angiography (CCTA) may also be used, allowing for the simultaneous evaluation of coronary artery vessels and calcified plaques. This study proposes a method for the automated quantification of the Agatston CAC score from CCTA and compares our method's performance with that of non-contrast cardiac CT.
Methods: Sixty-two patients were selected from a clinical registry and divided into four CAC categories. They underwent both non-contrast cardiac CT and CCTA. The Agatston CAC score derived from non-contrast cardiac CT (standard Agatston CAC score) was used as the reference standard. Calcifications were automatically identified and quantified using different thresholds after a deep learning-based coronary artery segmentation model pretrained on CCTA images. Comparisons were made between the standard Agatston CAC score and the CCTA-based Agatston CAC score (CCTA-CAC score) on a per-patient and per-vessel basis. Spearman's rank-order correlation coefficient (R) and intra-class correlation (ICC) values were used to calculate the correlation between the two methods.
Results: After comparison, the optimal lower threshold in CCTA-CAC score calculations was found to be 650 Hounsfield units (HU). Using this threshold on a per-patient basis, the automatically computed CCTA-CAC score showed a high correlation (R =0.959; P<0.01) and ICC (R =0.8219; P<0.01) with the standard Agatston CAC score. On a per-vessel basis, the standard Agatston CAC score was also highly correlated with the CCTA-CAC score (R =0.889; P<0.01 and ICC =0.717; P<0.01). Of the 62 patients enrolled, 47 (76%) were classified into the same cardiovascular risk category using the CCTA-CAC score quantification method as when the standard Agatston CAC score was used. Agreement within the CAC categories was also good (kappa =0.7560). Conclusions: Fully automated quantification of the Agatston CAC score on CCTA images is feasible and shows a high correlation with the reference standard. This method could simplify the quantification procedure and has the potential to reduce the radiation dose and save time by eliminating the non-contrast cardiac CT stage. 2022 Quantitative Imaging in Medicine and Surgery. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Coronary artery calcium (CAC); coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA); non-contrast cardiac computed tomography (CT)

Year:  2022        PMID: 35284280      PMCID: PMC8899961          DOI: 10.21037/qims-21-775

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Quant Imaging Med Surg        ISSN: 2223-4306


  34 in total

1.  Radiation exposure during cardiac CT: effective doses at multi-detector row CT and electron-beam CT.

Authors:  Peter Hunold; Florian M Vogt; Axel Schmermund; Jörg F Debatin; Gert Kerkhoff; Thomas Budde; Raimund Erbel; Klaus Ewen; Jörg Barkhausen
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2003-01       Impact factor: 11.105

2.  The adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction-V technique for radiation dose reduction in abdominal CT: comparison with the adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction technique.

Authors:  Heejin Kwon; Jinhan Cho; Jongyeong Oh; Dongwon Kim; Junghyun Cho; Sanghyun Kim; Sangyun Lee; Jihyun Lee
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2015-08-03       Impact factor: 3.039

3.  Automatic detection and quantification of the Agatston coronary artery calcium score on contrast computed tomography angiography.

Authors:  Wehab Ahmed; Michiel A de Graaf; Alexander Broersen; Pieter H Kitslaar; Elco Oost; Jouke Dijkstra; Jeroen J Bax; Johan H C Reiber; Arthur J Scholte
Journal:  Int J Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2014-08-27       Impact factor: 2.357

4.  ACCF/AHA 2007 clinical expert consensus document on coronary artery calcium scoring by computed tomography in global cardiovascular risk assessment and in evaluation of patients with chest pain: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Clinical Expert Consensus Task Force (ACCF/AHA Writing Committee to Update the 2000 Expert Consensus Document on Electron Beam Computed Tomography).

Authors:  Philip Greenland; Robert O Bonow; Bruce H Brundage; Matthew J Budoff; Mark J Eisenberg; Scott M Grundy; Michael S Lauer; Wendy S Post; Paolo Raggi; Rita F Redberg; George P Rodgers; Leslee J Shaw; Allen J Taylor; William S Weintraub; Robert A Harrington; Jonathan Abrams; Jeffrey L Anderson; Eric R Bates; Cindy L Grines; Mark A Hlatky; Robert C Lichtenberg; Jonathan R Lindner; Gerald M Pohost; Richard S Schofield; Samuel J Shubrooks; James H Stein; Cynthia M Tracy; Robert A Vogel; Deborah J Wesley
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2007-01-12       Impact factor: 29.690

5.  A method for calcium quantification by means of CT coronary angiography using 64-multidetector CT: very high correlation with Agatston and volume scores.

Authors:  Bernhard Glodny; Bettina Helmel; Thomas Trieb; Claudia Schenk; Bernadette Taferner; Verena Unterholzner; Alexander Strasak; Johannes Petersen
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2009-02-24       Impact factor: 5.315

6.  2019 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of chronic coronary syndromes.

Authors:  Juhani Knuuti; William Wijns; Antti Saraste; Davide Capodanno; Emanuele Barbato; Christian Funck-Brentano; Eva Prescott; Robert F Storey; Christi Deaton; Thomas Cuisset; Stefan Agewall; Kenneth Dickstein; Thor Edvardsen; Javier Escaned; Bernard J Gersh; Pavel Svitil; Martine Gilard; David Hasdai; Robert Hatala; Felix Mahfoud; Josep Masip; Claudio Muneretto; Marco Valgimigli; Stephan Achenbach; Jeroen J Bax
Journal:  Eur Heart J       Date:  2020-01-14       Impact factor: 29.983

7.  Coronary artery calcium score combined with Framingham score for risk prediction in asymptomatic individuals.

Authors:  Philip Greenland; Laurie LaBree; Stanley P Azen; Terence M Doherty; Robert C Detrano
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2004-01-14       Impact factor: 56.272

Review 8.  Coronary artery calcium screening: current status and recommendations from the European Society of Cardiac Radiology and North American Society for Cardiovascular Imaging.

Authors:  Matthijs Oudkerk; Arthur E Stillman; Sandra S Halliburton; Willi A Kalender; Stefan Möhlenkamp; Cynthia H McCollough; Rozemarijn Vliegenthart; Leslee J Shaw; William Stanford; Allen J Taylor; Peter M A van Ooijen; Lewis Wexler; Paolo Raggi
Journal:  Int J Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2008-05-27       Impact factor: 2.357

9.  Effect of different reconstruction algorithms on coronary artery calcium scores using the reduced radiation dose protocol: a clinical and phantom study.

Authors:  Yu-Kun Pan; Ming-Hua Sun; Jia-Jia Wang; Xing-Biao Chen; Xiao-Jing Kan; Ying-Hui Ge; Zhi-Ping Guo
Journal:  Quant Imaging Med Surg       Date:  2021-04

10.  CT FFR for Ischemia-Specific CAD With a New Computational Fluid Dynamics Algorithm: A Chinese Multicenter Study.

Authors:  Chun Xiang Tang; Chun Yu Liu; Meng Jie Lu; U Joseph Schoepf; Christian Tesche; Richard R Bayer; H Todd Hudson; Xiao Lei Zhang; Jian Hua Li; Yi Ning Wang; Chang Sheng Zhou; Jia Yin Zhang; Meng Meng Yu; Yang Hou; Min Wen Zheng; Bo Zhang; Dai Min Zhang; Yan Yi; Yuan Ren; Chen Wei Li; Xi Zhao; Guang Ming Lu; Xiu Hua Hu; Lei Xu; Long Jiang Zhang
Journal:  JACC Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2019-08-14
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.