Lekang Yin1, Cheng Yan1, Chun Yang1, Hao Dong2, Shijie Xu3, Chenwei Li3, Mengsu Zeng4,5,6. 1. Department of Radiology, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, No. 180 Fenglin Rd, Xuhui District, Shanghai, 200032, China. 2. Department of Radiology, First People's Hospital of Xiaoshan District, Hangzhou, 311200, China. 3. Shanghai United Imaging Healthcare Co., Ltd, No. 2258 Chengbei Rd., Jiading District, Shanghai, 201807, China. 4. Department of Radiology, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, No. 180 Fenglin Rd, Xuhui District, Shanghai, 200032, China. zengmengsu_sh@163.com. 5. Shanghai Institute of Medical Imaging, 180 Fenglin Road, Xuhui District, Shanghai, China. zengmengsu_sh@163.com. 6. Department of Medical Imaging, Shanghai Medical College, Fudan University, No. 138 Yi xue yuan Road, Shanghai, 200032, China. zengmengsu_sh@163.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Epicardial adipose tissue (EAT) is known as an important imaging indicator for cardiovascular risk stratification. The present study aimed to determine whether the EAT volume (EV) and mean EAT attenuation (mEA) measured by non-contrast routine chest CT (RCCT) could be more consistent with those measured by coronary CT angiography (CCTA) by adjusting the threshold of fatty attenuation. METHODS: In total, 83 subjects who simultaneously underwent CCTA and RCCT were enrolled. EV and mEA were quantified by CCTA using a threshold of (N30) (- 190 HU, - 30 HU) as a reference and measured by RCCT using thresholds of N30, N40 (- 190 HU, - 40 HU), and N45 (- 190 HU, - 45 HU). The correlation and agreement of EAT metrics between the two imaging modalities and differences between patients with coronary plaques (plaque ( +)) and without plaques (plaque ( -)) were analyzed. RESULTS: EV obtained from RCCT showed very strong correlation with the reference (r = 0.974, 0.976, 0.972 (N30, N40, N45), P < 0.001), whereas mEA showed a moderate correlation (r = 0.516, 0.500, 0.477 (N30, N40, N45), P < 0.001). Threshold adjustment was able to reduce the bias of EV, while increase the bias of mEA. Data obtained by CCTA and RCCT both demonstrated a significantly larger EV in the plaque ( +) group than in the plaque ( -) group (P < 0.05). A significant difference in mEA was shown only by RCCT using a threshold of N30 (plaque ( +) vs ( -): - 80.0 ± 4.4 HU vs - 78.0 ± 4.0 HU, P = 0.030). The mEA measured on RCCT using threshold of N40 and N45 showed no significant statistical difference between the two groups (P = 0.092 and 0.075), which was consistent with the result obtained on CCTA (P = 0.204). CONCLUSION: Applying more negative threshold, the consistency of EV measurements between the two techniques improves and a consistent result can be obtained when comparing EF measurements between groups, although the bias of mEA increases. Threshold adjustment is necessary when measuring EF with non-contrast RCCT.
BACKGROUND: Epicardial adipose tissue (EAT) is known as an important imaging indicator for cardiovascular risk stratification. The present study aimed to determine whether the EAT volume (EV) and mean EAT attenuation (mEA) measured by non-contrast routine chest CT (RCCT) could be more consistent with those measured by coronary CT angiography (CCTA) by adjusting the threshold of fatty attenuation. METHODS: In total, 83 subjects who simultaneously underwent CCTA and RCCT were enrolled. EV and mEA were quantified by CCTA using a threshold of (N30) (- 190 HU, - 30 HU) as a reference and measured by RCCT using thresholds of N30, N40 (- 190 HU, - 40 HU), and N45 (- 190 HU, - 45 HU). The correlation and agreement of EAT metrics between the two imaging modalities and differences between patients with coronary plaques (plaque ( +)) and without plaques (plaque ( -)) were analyzed. RESULTS: EV obtained from RCCT showed very strong correlation with the reference (r = 0.974, 0.976, 0.972 (N30, N40, N45), P < 0.001), whereas mEA showed a moderate correlation (r = 0.516, 0.500, 0.477 (N30, N40, N45), P < 0.001). Threshold adjustment was able to reduce the bias of EV, while increase the bias of mEA. Data obtained by CCTA and RCCT both demonstrated a significantly larger EV in the plaque ( +) group than in the plaque ( -) group (P < 0.05). A significant difference in mEA was shown only by RCCT using a threshold of N30 (plaque ( +) vs ( -): - 80.0 ± 4.4 HU vs - 78.0 ± 4.0 HU, P = 0.030). The mEA measured on RCCT using threshold of N40 and N45 showed no significant statistical difference between the two groups (P = 0.092 and 0.075), which was consistent with the result obtained on CCTA (P = 0.204). CONCLUSION: Applying more negative threshold, the consistency of EV measurements between the two techniques improves and a consistent result can be obtained when comparing EF measurements between groups, although the bias of mEA increases. Threshold adjustment is necessary when measuring EF with non-contrast RCCT.
Authors: Andreas M Bucher; U Joseph Schoepf; Aleksander W Krazinski; Justin Silverman; James V Spearman; Carlo N De Cecco; Felix G Meinel; Thomas J Vogl; Lucas L Geyer Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2015-03-25 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: Peter Aldiss; Graeme Davies; Rachel Woods; Helen Budge; Harold S Sacks; Michael E Symonds Journal: Int J Cardiol Date: 2016-11-09 Impact factor: 4.164
Authors: Evangelos K Oikonomou; Mohamed Marwan; Milind Y Desai; Jennifer Mancio; Alaa Alashi; Erika Hutt Centeno; Sheena Thomas; Laura Herdman; Christos P Kotanidis; Katharine E Thomas; Brian P Griffin; Scott D Flamm; Alexios S Antonopoulos; Cheerag Shirodaria; Nikant Sabharwal; John Deanfield; Stefan Neubauer; Jemma C Hopewell; Keith M Channon; Stephan Achenbach; Charalambos Antoniades Journal: Lancet Date: 2018-08-28 Impact factor: 79.321