Comparison of Coronary Artery Calcium Scores Between Electron Beam Computed Tomography and 64-Multidetector Computed Tomographic Scanner
Comparison of Coronary Artery Calcium Scores Between Electron Beam Computed Tomography and 64-Multidetector Computed Tomographic Scanner
复制标题
DOI：
10.1097/rct.0b013e31817579ee
复制
发表时间：
2009-03-01
影响因子：
1.3
通讯作者：
Budoff, Matthew Jay
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Mao, Song S.;Pal, Raveen S.;Budoff, Matthew Jay
目的：由于目前可用的几乎所有冠状动脉钙化扫描数据都来自电子束断层扫描（EBT），我们评估了64位多探测器计算机断层扫描（CT； MDCT）获得的评分是否相似。我们评估了EBT和64-MDCT （VCT； GE, Milwaukee, wisconsin）之间冠状动脉钙（CAC）、Agatston评分（AS）和容积评分（VS）的扫描间变化。材料和方法：102例患者（平均年龄61.1岁，女性27例）采用EBT和64-MDCT进行双重CAC扫描，AS和VS由Aquarius工作站（TeraRecon, Inc, San Mateo, california）测量。计算EBT与64-MDCT的相关系数、Bland-Altman分析、扫描间变异以及AS和VS评分的一致性。结果：CAC存在的扫描间一致性为99%。AS的中位值分别为286和268 mm(2)， VS合并EBT和64-MDCT的中位值分别为243和213 mm(2) （P < 0.05）。两种扫描仪的评分之间存在显著的线性关系（AS的R = 0.98， VS的R = 0.99; P < 0.001）。在AS和VS中，EBT和64-MDCT的扫描间变异性分别为20.9%和17.6% （P = NS）。Bland-Altman分析显示，与EBT相比，AS的平均得分差异为8.3%，vs的平均得分差异为7.8%。与EBT相比，使用64-MDCT时，有更大更普遍的运动伪影（P < 0.001）和更大的平均Hounsfield单位（P < 0.001）。结论：在CAC扫描中，64-MDCT和EBT在AS和vs方面具有可比性。扫描仪之间的扫描间变异性类似于在同一设备上完成的2个钙评分的扫描间变异性。然而，在这项钙评分研究中，心率得到了控制。在没有心率控制的情况下，这些结果是否可重复需要进一步评估。
Objective: Because almost all data currently available with coronary calcium scanning are from electron beam tomography (EBT), we assessed whether scores obtained with 64-multidetector computed tomography (CT; MDCT) are similar. We evaluated the interscan variation in coronary artery calcium (CAC), Agatston score (AS), and volume score (VS) between EBT and 64-MDCT (VCT; GE, Milwaukee, Wis).Materials and Methods: One hundred two patients (mean age, 61.1 years; 27 women) underwent dual CAC scanning with both EBT and 64-MDCT, The AS and VS were measured with the Aquarius workstation (TeraRecon, Inc, San Mateo, Calif). The correlation coefficient, Bland-Altman analysis, interscanner variation, and agreement in AS and VS scores between EBT and 64-MDCT were computed.Results: Interscan agreement for presence of CAC was 99%. Median values were 286 and 268 mm(2) for AS and 243 and 213 mm2 for VS with EBT and 64-MDCT, respectively (P > 0.05). There was significant linear relationship between scores from the 2 scanners (R = 0.98 in AS and R = 0.99 in VS; P < 0.001). The interscanner variability between EBT and 64-MDCT was 20.9% and 17.6% in AS and VS, respectively (P = NS). Bland-Altman analysis demonstrated a mean difference in scores of 8.3% for AS and 7.8% by VS. When compared with EBT, there were larger and more prevalent motion artifacts (P < 0.001) and larger mean Hounsfield units using 64-MDCT (P < 0.001).Conclusions: At CAC scanning, 64-MDCT and EBT were comparable in AS and VS. The interscan variability between scanners is similar to interscan variability of 2 calcium scores done on the same equipment. However, heart rate control was achieved for this study for calcium scores. Whether these results are repeatable without heart rate control needs to be further assessed.