RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine a more precise and accurate method of quantitating coronary artery calcium (CAC) detected with electron-beam computed tomography (CT) in patients with low CAC scores. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two 40-section, 3-mm-collimation, electrocardiographically gated electron-beam CT examinations of the heart were performed in each patient. Fifty patients with average scores between 2 and 100, as determined with the conventional scoring algorithm, were selected. The modified conventional scoring algorithm was compared with two techniques: calculated calcium volume and approximated calcium mass. RESULTS: The percentage difference between scans ranged from 37.2% for the conventional scoring method to 28.2% and 28.4% for volume- and mass-based methods, respectively. Increasing lesion size thresholds does not improve quantitative precision and reduces accuracy in patients with small amounts of CAC. CONCLUSION: Quantification methods based on calcification volume or mass decrease score variation compared with the conventional scoring method, and increased size threshold does not improve accuracy.
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine a more precise and accurate method of quantitating coronary artery calcium (CAC) detected with electron-beam computed tomography (CT) in patients with low CAC scores. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two 40-section, 3-mm-collimation, electrocardiographically gated electron-beam CT examinations of the heart were performed in each patient. Fifty patients with average scores between 2 and 100, as determined with the conventional scoring algorithm, were selected. The modified conventional scoring algorithm was compared with two techniques: calculated calcium volume and approximated calcium mass. RESULTS: The percentage difference between scans ranged from 37.2% for the conventional scoring method to 28.2% and 28.4% for volume- and mass-based methods, respectively. Increasing lesion size thresholds does not improve quantitative precision and reduces accuracy in patients with small amounts of CAC. CONCLUSION: Quantification methods based on calcification volume or mass decrease score variation compared with the conventional scoring method, and increased size threshold does not improve accuracy.
Authors: Georg Mühlenbruch; Ernst Klotz; Joachim E Wildberger; Ralf Koos; Marco Das; Matthias Niethammer; Christian Hohl; Dagmar Honnef; Christoph Thomas; Rolf W Günther; Andreas H Mahnken Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2006-07-04 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: S Möhlenkamp; T R Behrenbeck; H Pump; P Kriener; S Lange; D Baumgart; R M Seibel; D H Grönemeyer; R Erbel Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2001-04 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Jack W Lambert; Yuxin Sun; Karen G Ordovas; Robert G Gould; Sizhe Wang; Benjamin M Yeh Journal: J Comput Assist Tomogr Date: 2018 May/Jun Impact factor: 1.826