European Radiology

, Volume 16, Issue 2, pp 374–380

Electron beam CT versus 16-slice spiral CT: how accurately can we measure coronary artery calcium volume?

  • Jun Horiguchi
  • Yun Shen
  • Yuji Akiyama
  • Nobuhiko Hirai
  • Kousuke Sasaki
  • Minoru Ishifuro
  • Katsuhide Ito
Experimental

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate how accurately CAC volume we can be measured using electron beam computed tomography (CT) and 16-slice spiral CT. CAC models with known volume attached to a cardiac phantom were scanned. The error of measurement, variability between measured and real volumes, and inter-scan measurement variability were obtained. For spiral CT, seven different parameters were included: (1) slice thickness (0.625 mm, 1.25 mm and 2.5 mm), (2) retrospective spiral electrocardiograph (ECG)-gated or prospective axial ECG-triggering, (3) overlapping or non-overlapping. The error of measurement was 15% on electron beam CT and 8–20% on spiral CT. CAC volumes were underestimated in 92% and overestimated in 8% of the electron beam CT scans. Volumes were underestimated in 79%, correct in 5% and overestimated in 16% of the spiral CT scans. The best measurement and the least variability was observed on 0.625-mm retrospective spiral ECG-gated CT (error of 8%), a significant result (t-test: P<0.01) when compared with electron beam CT. CAC volume measurement on CT scanners may be significantly different and often underestimates the real volume of CAC. For precise evaluation of CAC volume, thin-slice retrospective spiral ECG-gated scan using a spiral CT scanner is desirable.

Keywords

Coronary artery Calcification Spiral CT Electron beam CT 

References

  1. 1.
    Arad Y, Spadaro LA, Goodman K, Newstein D, Guerci AD (2000) Prediction of coronary events with electron beam computed tomography. J Am Coll Cardiol 36:1253–1260CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wong ND, Hsu JC, Detrano RC, Diamond G, Eisenberg H, Gardin JM (2000) Coronary artery calcium evaluation by electron beam computed tomography and its relation to new cardiovascular events. Am J Cardiol 86:495–498CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Agatston AS, Janowitz WR, Hildner FJ, Zusmer NR, Viamonte M, Detrano R (1990) Quantification of coronary calcium using ultrafast computed tomography. J Am Coll Cardiol 15:827–832PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Callister TQ, Raggi P, Cooil B, Lippolis NJ, Russo DJ (1998) Effect of HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors on coronary artery disease as assessed by electron-beam computed tomography. N Engl J Med 339:1972–1978PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Budoff MJ, Lane KL, Bakhsheshi H et al (2000) Rates of progression of coronary calcium by electron beam tomography. Am J Cardiol 86:8–11CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Callister TQ, Cooil B, Raya SP et al (1998) Coronary artery disease: improved reproducibility of calcium scoring with an electron-beam CT volumetric method. Radiology 208:807–814PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Detrano R, Kang X, Mahaisavariya P et al (1994) Accuracy of quantifying coronary hydroxyapatite with electron beam tomography. Invest Radiol 29:733–738PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Horiguchi J, Nakanishi T, Ito K (2001) Quantification of coronary artery calcium using multidetector CT and a retrospective ECG-gating reconstruction algorithm. AJR Am J Roentgenol 177:1429–1435PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kopp AF, Ohnesorge B, Becker C et al (2002) Reproducibility and accuracy of coronary calcium measurements with multi-detector row versus electron-beam CT. Radiology 225:113–119PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kajinami K, Seki H, Takekoshi N, Mabuchi H (1993) Quantification of coronary artery calcification using ultrafast computed tomography: reproducibility of measurements. Coron Artery Dis 4:1103–1108PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Yoon HC, Greaser III LE, Mather R et al (1997) Coronary artery calcium: alternate methods for accurate and reproducible quantification. Acta Radiol 4:666–673Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mao S, Bakhsheshi H, Lu B, Liu SCK, Oudiz RJ, Budoff MJ (2001) Effect of electrocardiogram triggering on reproducibility of coronary artery calcium scoring. Radiology 220:707–711PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bielak LF, Kaufmann RB, Moll PP, McCollough CH, Schwartz RS, Sheedy PF (1994) Small lesions in the heart identified at electron beam CT: calcification or noise? Radiology 192:631–636PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    McCollough CH, Kaufmann RB, Cameron BM, Katz DJ, Sheedy PF, Peyser PA (1995) Electron-beam CT: use of a calibration phantom to reduce variability in calcium quantification. Radiology 196:159–165PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Achenbach S, Ropers D, Mohlenkamp S et al (2001) Variability of repeated coronary artery calcium measurements by electron beam tomography. Am J Cardiol 87:210–213CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    van Ooijen PM, Vliegenthart R, Witteman JCM, Oudkerk M (2005) Influence of scoring parameter settings on Agatston and volume scores for coronary calcification. Eur Radiol 15:102–110CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ohnesorge B, Flohr T, Fischbach R et al (2002) Reproducibility of coronary calcium quantification in repeat examinations with retrospectively ECG-gated multisection spiral CT. Eur Radiol 12:1532–1540CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ulzheimer S, Kalender WA (2003) Assessment of coronary artery scoring performance in cardiac computed tomography. Eur Radiol 13:484–497PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rumberger JA, Brundage BH, Rader DJ, Kondos G (1999) Electron beam computed tomographic coronary calcium scanning: a review and guidelines for use in asymptomatic patients. Mayo Clin Proc 74:243–252PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Becker CR, Majeed A, Crispin A et al (2005) CT measurement of coronary calcium mass: impact on global cardiac risk assessment. Eur Radiol 15:96–101CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wicky S, Rosol M, Hamberg LM, et al (2002) Evaluation of retrospective multisector and half scan ECG-gated multidetector cardiac CT protocols with moving phantoms. J Comput Assist Tomogr 26:768–776CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Schlosser T, Hunold P, Schmermund A et al (2004) Coronary artery calcium score: influence of reconstruction interval at 16-detector row CT with retrospective electrocardiographic gating. Radiology 233:586–589PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Nelson JC, Kronmal RA, Carr JJ et al (2005) Measuring coronary calcium on CT images adjusted for attenuation differences. Radiology 235:403–414PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jun Horiguchi
    • 1
  • Yun Shen
    • 2
  • Yuji Akiyama
    • 1
  • Nobuhiko Hirai
    • 1
  • Kousuke Sasaki
    • 2
  • Minoru Ishifuro
    • 1
  • Katsuhide Ito
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Clinical RadiologyHiroshima University HospitalHiroshimaJapan
  2. 2.Imaging Application Tech CenterGE Yokogawa Medical SystemsTokyoJapan
  3. 3.Department of Radiology, Division of Medical Intelligence and Informatics, Programs for Applied Biomedicine, Graduate School of Biomedical SciencesHiroshima UniversityHiroshimaJapan

Personalised recommendations