Interobserver agreement for the detection of atherosclerotic plaque in coronary CT angiography: comparison of two low-dose image acquisition protocols with standard retrospectively ECG-gated reconstruction
- 331 Downloads
We compared the interobserver variability concerning the detection of calcified and non-calcified plaque in two different low-dose and standard retrospectively gated protocols for coronary CTA.
150 patients with low heart rates and less than 100 kg body weight were randomised and examined by contrast-enhanced dual-source CT coronary angiography (100 kV, 320 mAs). 50 patients were examined with prospectively ECG-triggered axial acquisition, 50 patients with prospectively ECG-triggered high pitch spiral acquisition, and 50 patients using spiral acquisition with retrospective ECG gating. Two investigators independently analysed the datasets concerning the presence of calcified and non-calcified plaque on a per-segment level.
Mean effective dose was 1.4 ± 0.2 mSv for axial, 0.8 ± 0.07 mSv for high-pitch spiral, and 5.3 ± 2.6 mSV for standard spiral acquisition (P < 0.0001). In axial acquisition, interobserver agreement concerning the presence of atherosclerotic plaque was achieved in 650/749 coronary segments (86.8%). In high-pitch spiral acquisition, agreement was achieved in 664/748 segments (88.8%, n.s.). In standard spiral acquisition, agreement was achieved in 672/738 segments (91.0%, P < 0.0001). Interobserver agreement was significantly higher for calcified than for non-calcified plaque in all data acquisition modes.
Low-dose coronary CT angiography permits the detection of coronary atherosclerotic plaque with good interobserver agreement.
• Low-dose CT protocols permit coronary plaque detection with good interobserver agreement.
• Image noise is a major predictor of interobserver variability.
• Interobserver agreement is significantly higher for calcified than for non-calcified plaque.
KeywordsCoronary CT angiography Atherosclerotic plaque Interobserver agreement Dual-source CT Cardiac
This study was supported by the German Government, Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (01EX1012B, “Spitzencluster Medical Valley”).
- 1.Taylor AJ, Cerqueira M, Hodgson JM, ACCF/SCCT/ACR/AHA/ASE/ASNC/NASCI/SCAI/SCMR et al (2010) Appropriate use criteria for cardiac computed tomography. A report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Appropriate Use Criteria Task Force, the Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, the American College of Radiology, the American Heart Association, the American Society of Echocardiography, the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, the North American Society for Cardiovascular Imaging, the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr 4(407):e1–e33PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 4.Chow BJ, Small G, Yam Y et al (2011) Incremental prognostic value of cardiac computed tomography in coronary artery disease using CONFIRM: COroNary computed tomography angiography evaluation for clinical outcomes: an InteRnational Multicenter registry. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging 4:463–472PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 9.Einstein AJ, Knuuti J (2011) Cardiac imaging: does radiation matter? Eur Heart J. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehr281
- 26.Achenbach S, Moselewski F, Ropers D et al (2004) Detection of calcified and noncalcified coronary atherosclerotic plaque by contrast-enhanced, submillimeter multidetector spiral computed tomography: a segment-based comparison with intravascular ultrasound. Circulation 109:14–17PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 27.Bongartz G, Golding S, Jurik AG et al (2004) European guidelines for multislice computed tomography: Appendix C funded by the European Commission. Contract number FIGM-CT2000-20078-CT-TIPGoogle Scholar
- 30.Ovrehus KA, Marwan M, Botker HE, Achenbach S, Norgaard BL (2011) Reproducibility of coronary plaque detection and characterization using low radiation dose coronary computed tomographic angiography in patients with intermediate likelihood of coronary artery disease (ReSCAN study). Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. doi: 10.1007/s10554-011-9895-1
- 31.Hoffmann H, Frieler K, Hamm B, Dewey M (2008) Intra- and interobserver variability in detection and assessment of calcified and noncalcified coronary artery plaques using 64-slice computed tomography: variability in coronary plaque measurement using MSCT. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 24:735–742PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 37.van Velzen JE, de Graaf FR, Kroft LJ et al (2011) Performance and efficacy of 320-row computed tomography coronary angiography in patients presenting with acute chest pain: results from a clinical registry. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. doi: 10.1007/s10554-011-9889-z
- 40.van der Giessen AG, Toepker MH, Donelly PM et al (2010) Reproducibility, accuracy, and predictors of accuracy for the detection of coronary atherosclerotic plaque composition by computed tomography: an ex vivo comparison to intravascular ultrasound. Invest Radiol 45:693–701PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 43.Ovrehus KA, Munkholm H, Bøttcher M, Bøtker HE, Nørgaard BL (2010) Coronary computed tomographic angiography in patients suspected of coronary artery disease: impact of observer experience on diagnostic performance and interobserver reproducibility. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr 4:186–194PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar