Wenjia Wang1, Lin Yang2, Sicong Wang1, Qiong Wang2, Lei Xu2. 1. GE Healthcare China, Beijing, China. 2. Department of Radiology, Beijing Anzhen Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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