Accuracy of automated software-guided detection of significant coronary artery stenosis by CT angiography: comparison with invasive catheterisation
- 386 Downloads
True automated detection of coronary artery stenoses might be useful whenever expert evaluation is not available, or as a “second reader” to enhance diagnostic confidence. We evaluated the accuracy of a PC-based stenosis detection tool alone and combined with expert interpretation.
One hundred coronary CT angiography datasets were evaluated with the automated software alone, by manual interpretation (axial images, multiplanar reformations and maximum intensity projections in free double-oblique planes), and by expert interpretation aware of the automated findings. Stenoses ≥ 50 % were noted per-vessel and per-patient, and compared with invasive angiography.
Automated post-processing was successful in 90 % of patients (88 % of vessels). When excluding uninterpretable datasets, per-patient sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) were 89 %, 79 %, 74 % and 92 % (per-vessel: 82 %, 85 %, 48 % and 96 %). All 100 datasets were evaluable by expert interpretation. Per-patient sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV were 95 %, 95 %, 93 % and 97 % (per-vessel: 89 %,98 %, 88 % and 98 %). Knowing the results of automated interpretation did not improve the performance of expert readers.
Automated off-line post-processing of coronary CT angiography shows adequate sensitivity, but relatively low specificity in coronary stenosis detection. It does not increase accuracy of expert interpretation. Failure of post-processing in 10 % of all patients necessitates additional manual image work-up.
• Coronary CT angiography is increasingly used for detection of coronary artery stenosis
• Computer assisted diagnosis might facilitate and speed up interpretation
• Performance in properly segmented cases compared favourably with manual image interpretation
• However, automated segmentation failed in about 10 % of cases
• Manual reading is still mandatory; computer assisted diagnosis can provide a useful second read
KeywordsCoronary artery disease Coronary stenosis Multidetector computed tomography Coronary angiography Computer assisted diagnosis
Tobias Pflederer and Stephan Achenbach have received speaker honoraria from Siemens Healthcare. Stephan Achenbach has received research grants from Bayer Schering Pharma.
This study was supported by the German Government, Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (01EX1012B, “Spitzencluster Medical Valley”)
- 1.Taylor AJ, Cerqueira M, Hodgson JM et al (2010) ACCF/SCCT/ACR/AHA/ASE/ASNC/NASCI/SCAI/SCMR 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. Circulation 122:e525–e555PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 2.Achenbach S, Barkhausen J, Beer M et al (2012) Consensus recommendations of the German Radiology Society (DRG), the German Cardiac Society (DGK) and the German Society for Pediatric Cardiology (DGPK) on the use of cardiac imaging with computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging. Rofo 184:345–368, GermanPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar