Login Register Cart 0
Generic placeholder image

Current Medical Imaging

Editor-in-Chief

ISSN (Print): 1573-4056
ISSN (Online): 1875-6603

Back
Journal Home About Journal Editorial Board Journal Insight Current Issue Volumes/Issues
Subscribe
Research Article

Impact of Several Factors on the Diagnostic Interpretability of Coronary Computed Tomographic Angiography Using a 256-Detector Row CT Scanner

Author(s): Lixue Xu, Nan Luo, Yi He and Zhenghan Yang*

Volume 18, Issue 7, 2022

Published on: 24 March, 2022

Article ID: e171121198011 Pages: 10

DOI: 10.2174/1573405617666211117140617

Price: $65

Abstract

Objective: This study aimed at exploring the impact of patient-related, vessel-related, image quality-related and cardiovascular risk factors on coronary computed tomographic angiography (CCTA) interpretability using 256-detector row computed tomography (CT).

Methods: One hundred ten patients who underwent CCTA and Invasive Coronary Angiography (ICA) were consecutively, retrospectively enrolled from January 2018 to October 2018. Using ICA as the reference standard, ≥50% diameter stenosis was defined as the cut-off criterion to detect the diagnostic performance of CCTA. Diagnostic reproducibility was investigated by calculating the interrater reproducibility of CCTA. Multiple logistic regression models were performed to evaluate the impact of 14 objective factors.

Results: A total of 1019 segments were evaluated. The per-segment sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of CCTA were 76.8%, 93.7%, 91.2%, 67.8%, and 95.9%, respectively. The per-segment diagnostic reproducibility was 0.44 for CCTA. Regarding accuracy, a negative association was found for stenosis severity, calcium load, and hyperlipidaemia. Regarding sensitivity, calcium load and diabetes mellitus (DM) were positively related. Regarding specificity, a negative correlation was observed between stenosis severity and calcium load. Regarding interrater reproducibility, stenosis severity and calcium load were negatively associated, whereas male sex and the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) were positively related (all p<0.05).

Conclusion: Per-segment 256-detector row CCTA performance was optimal in stenosis-free or occluded segments. Heavier calcium load was associated with poorer CCTA interpretability. On the one hand, our findings confirmed the rule-out value of CCTA; on the other hand, improvements in calcium subtractions and deep learning-based tools are suggested to improve CCTA diagnostic interpretability.

Keywords: Coronary artery disease, computed tomography angiography, 256-detector row CT, diagnostic accuracy, interrater reproducibility, calcium.

Graphical Abstract

[1]
Budoff MJ, Dowe D, Jollis JG, et al. Diagnostic performance of 64-multidetector row coronary computed tomographic angiography for evaluation of coronary artery stenosis in individuals without known coronary artery disease: Results from the prospective multicenter ACCURACY (Assessment by Coronary Computed Tomographic Angiography of Individuals Undergoing Invasive Coronary Angiography) trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 2008; 52(21): 1724-32.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2008.07.031] [PMID: 19007693]
[2]
Abbara S, Blanke P, Maroules CD, et al. SCCT guidelines for the performance and acquisition of coronary computed tomographic angiography: A report of the society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography Guidelines Committee: Endorsed by the North American Society for Cardiovascular Imaging (NASCI). J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr 2016; 10(6): 435-49.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcct.2016.10.002] [PMID: 27780758]
[3]
Montalescot G, Sechtem U, Achenbach S, et al. 2013 ESC guidelines on the management of stable coronary artery disease: The Task Force on the management of stable coronary artery disease of the European Society of Cardiology. Eur Heart J 2013; 34(38): 2949-3003.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/eht296] [PMID: 23996286]
[4]
Ghekiere O, Nchimi A, Djekic J, et al. Coronary computed tomography angiography: Patient-related factors determining image quality using a second-generation 320-slice CT scanner. Int J Cardiol 2016; 221: 970-6.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcard.2016.07.141] [PMID: 27441477]
[5]
Miller RJH, Eisenberg E, Friedman J, et al. Impact of heart rate on coronary computed tomographic angiography interpretability with a third-generation dual-source scanner. Int J Cardiol 2019; 295: 42-7.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcard.2019.07.098] [PMID: 31427117]
[6]
Vavere AL, Arbab-Zadeh A, Rochitte CE, et al. Coronary artery stenoses: Accuracy of 64-detector row CT angiography in segments with mild, moderate, or severe calcification-a subanalysis of the CORE-64 trial. Radiology 2011; 261(1): 100-8.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/radiol.11110537] [PMID: 21828192]
[7]
Yin WH, Lu B, Li N, et al. Iterative reconstruction to preserve image quality and diagnostic accuracy at reduced radiation dose in coronary CT angiography: An intraindividual comparison. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 2013; 6(12): 1239-49.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcmg.2013.08.008] [PMID: 24269265]
[8]
Hamon M, Morello R, Riddell JW, Hamon M. Coronary arteries: diagnostic performance of 16- versus 64-section spiral CT compared with invasive coronary angiography-meta-analysis. Radiology 2007; 245(3): 720-31.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2453061899] [PMID: 17951354]
[9]
Alkadhi H, Scheffel H, Desbiolles L, et al. Dual-source computed tomography coronary angiography: Influence of obesity, calcium load, and heart rate on diagnostic accuracy. Eur Heart J 2008; 29(6): 766-76.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehn044] [PMID: 18292596]
[10]
Brodoefel H, Burgstahler C, Tsiflikas I, et al. Dual-source CT: Effect of heart rate, heart rate variability, and calcification on image quality and diagnostic accuracy. Radiology 2008; 247(2): 346-55.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2472070906] [PMID: 18372455]
[11]
Haase R, Schlattmann P, Gueret P, et al. Diagnosis of obstructive coronary artery disease using computed tomography angiography in patients with stable chest pain depending on clinical probability and in clinically important subgroups: Meta-analysis of individual patient data. BMJ 2019; 365: l1945.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l1945] [PMID: 31189617]
[12]
Benz DC, Fuchs TA, Gräni C, et al. Head-to-head comparison of adaptive statistical and model-based iterative reconstruction algorithms for submillisievert coronary CT angiography. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging 2018; 19(2): 193-8.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ehjci/jex008] [PMID: 28200212]
[13]
Muenzel D, Noel PB, Dorn F, Dobritz M, Rummeny EJ, Huber A. Step and shoot coronary CT angiography using 256-slice CT: Effect of heart rate and heart rate variability on image quality. Eur Radiol 2011; 21(11): 2277-84.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-011-2185-4] [PMID: 21710267]
[14]
Cho I, Al’Aref SJ, Berger A, et al. Prognostic value of coronary computed tomographic angiography findings in asymptomatic individuals: A 6-year follow-up from the prospective multicentre international CONFIRM study. Eur Heart J 2018; 39(11): 934-41.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehx774] [PMID: 29365193]
[15]
Grech ED, Ramsdale DR, Bray CL, Faragher EB. Family history as an independent risk factor of coronary artery disease. Eur Heart J 1992; 13(10): 1311-5.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.eurheartj.a060059] [PMID: 1396801]
[16]
Cury RC, Abbara S, Achenbach S, et al. CAD-RADS(TM) Coronary Artery Disease - Reporting and Data System. An expert consensus document of the Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography (SCCT), the American College of Radiology (ACR) and the North American Society for Cardiovascular Imaging (NASCI). J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr 2016; 10(4): 269-81.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcct.2016.04.005] [PMID: 27318587]
[17]
Leipsic J, Abbara S, Achenbach S, et al. SCCT guidelines for the interpretation and reporting of coronary CT angiography: A report of the Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography Guidelines Committee. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr 2014; 8(5): 342-58.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcct.2014.07.003] [PMID: 25301040]
[18]
Peduzzi P, Concato J, Kemper E, Holford TR, Feinstein AR. A simulation study of the number of events per variable in logistic regression analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 1996; 49(12): 1373-9.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0895-4356(96)00236-3] [PMID: 8970487]
[19]
Einarson TR, Acs A, Ludwig C, Panton UH. Prevalence of cardiovascular disease in type 2 diabetes: A systematic literature review of scientific evidence from across the world in 2007-2017. Cardiovasc Diabetol 2018; 17(1): 83.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12933-018-0728-6] [PMID: 29884191]
[20]
Zou KH, O’Malley AJ, Mauri L. Receiver-operating characteristic analysis for evaluating diagnostic tests and predictive models. Circulation 2007; 115(5): 654-7.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.105.594929] [PMID: 17283280]
[21]
Hendriksen JM, Geersing GJ, Moons KG, de Groot JA. Diagnostic and prognostic prediction models. J Thromb Haemost 2013; 11(Suppl. 1): 129-41.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jth.12262] [PMID: 23809117]
[22]
Raff GL, Gallagher MJ, O’Neill WW, Goldstein JA. Diagnostic accuracy of noninvasive coronary angiography using 64-slice spiral computed tomography. J Am Coll Cardiol 2005; 46(3): 552-7.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2005.05.056] [PMID: 16053973]
[23]
Retson TA, Besser AH, Sall S, Golden D, Hsiao A. Machine learning and deep neural networks in thoracic and cardiovascular imaging. J Thorac Imaging 2019; 34(3): 192-201.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/RTI.0000000000000385] [PMID: 31009397]
[24]
Williams MC, Moss A, Dweck M, et al. Standardized reporting systems for computed tomography coronary angiography and calcium scoring: A real-world validation of CAD-RADS and CAC- DRS in patients with stable chest pain. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr 2019.
[PMID: 31377034]
[25]
De Santis D, Jin KN, Schoepf UJ, et al. Heavily calcified coronary arteries: Advanced calcium subtraction improves luminal visualization and diagnostic confidence in dual-energy coronary computed tomography angiography. Invest Radiol 2018; 53(2): 103-9.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/RLI.0000000000000416] [PMID: 29016370]
[26]
Nørgaard KS, Isaksen C, Buhl JS, et al. Single-centre cohort study of gender influence in coronary CT angiography in patients with a low to intermediate pretest probability of coronary heart disease. Open Heart 2015; 2(1): e000233.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/openhrt-2014-000233] [PMID: 26196016]
[27]
Popa LE, Petresc B, Cătană C, et al. Association between cardiovascular risk factors and coronary artery disease assessed using CAD-RADS classification: A cross-sectional study in Romanian population. BMJ Open 2020; 10(1): e031799.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-031799] [PMID: 31915161]
[28]
Tay SY, Chang PY, Lao WT, Lin YC, Chung YH, Chan WP. The proper use of coronary calcium score and coronary computed tomography angiography for screening asymptomatic patients with cardiovascular risk factors. Sci Rep 2017; 7(1): 17653.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-17655-w] [PMID: 29247160]
[29]
Shi R, Shi K, Yang ZG, et al. Serial coronary computed tomography angiography-verified coronary plaque progression: Comparison of stented patients with or without diabetes. Cardiovasc Diabetol 2019; 18(1): 123.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12933-019-0924-z] [PMID: 31551077]
[30]
Won KB, Lee SE, Lee BK, et al. Longitudinal quantitative assessment of coronary plaque progression related to body mass index using serial coronary computed tomography angiography. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging 2019; 20(5): 591-9.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ehjci/jey192] [PMID: 30657884]
[31]
Mangold S, Wichmann JL, Schoepf UJ, et al. Automated tube voltage selection for radiation dose and contrast medium reduction at coronary CT angiography using 3rd generation dual-source CT. Eur Radiol 2016; 26(10): 3608-16.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-015-4191-4] [PMID: 26847044]
[32]
Stocker TJ, Leipsic J, Hadamitzky M, et al. Application of low tube potentials in CCTA: Results from the PROTECTION VI Study. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 2020; 13(2 Pt 1): 425-34.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcmg.2019.03.030] [PMID: 31202772]
[33]
Chiles C, Duan F, Gladish GW, et al. Association of coronary artery calcification and mortality in the national lung screening trial: A comparison of three scoring methods. Radiology 2015; 276(1): 82-90.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/radiol.15142062] [PMID: 25759972]

Rights & Permissions Print Cite
Article Metrics
34
1
© 2024 Bentham Science Publishers | Privacy Policy