Advertisement

European Radiology

, Volume 25, Issue 10, pp 3073–3083 | Cite as

Clinical Feasibility of 3D Automated Coronary Atherosclerotic Plaque Quantification Algorithm on Coronary Computed Tomography Angiography: Comparison with Intravascular Ultrasound

  • Hyung-Bok Park
  • Byoung Kwon Lee
  • Sanghoon Shin
  • Ran Heo
  • Reza Arsanjani
  • Pieter H. Kitslaar
  • Alexander Broersen
  • Jouke Dijkstra
  • Sung Gyun Ahn
  • James K. Min
  • Hyuk-Jae Chang
  • Myeong-Ki Hong
  • Yangsoo Jang
  • Namsik Chung
Cardiac

Abstract

Objective

To evaluate the diagnostic performance of automated coronary atherosclerotic plaque quantification (QCT) by different users (expert/non-expert/automatic).

Methods

One hundred fifty coronary artery segments from 142 patients who underwent coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) and intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) were analyzed. Minimal lumen area (MLA), maximal lumen area stenosis percentage (%AS), mean plaque burden percentage (%PB), and plaque volume were measured semi-automatically by expert, non-expert, and fully automatic QCT analyses, and then compared to IVUS.

Results

Between IVUS and expert QCT analysis, the correlation coefficients (r) for the MLA, %AS, %PB, and plaque volume were excellent: 0.89 (p < 0.001), 0.84 (p < 0.001), 0.91 (p < 0.001), and 0.94 (p < 0.001), respectively. There were no significant differences in the mean parameters (all p values >0.05) except %AS (p = 0.01). The automatic QCT analysis showed comparable performance to non-expert QCT analysis, showing correlation coefficients (r) of the MLA (0.80 vs. 0.82), %AS (0.82 vs. 0.80), %PB (0.84 vs. 0.73), and plaque volume (0.84 vs. 0.79) when they were compared to IVUS, respectively.

Conclusion

Fully automatic QCT analysis showed clinical utility compared with IVUS, as well as a compelling performance when compared with semiautomatic analyses.

Key Points

Coronary CTA enables the assessment of coronary atherosclerotic plaque.

High-risk plaque characteristics and overall plaque burden can predict future cardiac events.

Coronary atherosclerotic plaque quantification is currently unfeasible in practice.

Quantitative computed tomography coronary plaque analysis software (QCT) enables feasible plaque quantification.

Fully automatic QCT analysis shows excellent performance.

Keywords

Coronary atherosclerotic plaque Coronary computed tomography angiography Automatic quantification Plaque volume Intravascular ultrasound 

Abbreviations

CCTA

Coronary computed tomography angiography

QCT

Quantitative computed tomography

ICA

Invasive coronary angiography

IVUS

Intravascular ultrasound

CAD

Coronary artery disease

CI

Confidence interval

MLA

Minimal lumen area

MLD

Minimal lumen diameter

%DS

Maximal lumen diameter stenosis percentage

%AS

Maximal lumen area stenosis percentage

%PB

Mean plaque burden percentage

Notes

Acknowledgments

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Hyuk-Jae Chang. The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article. This research was supported by the Leading Foreign Research Institute Recruitment Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Science, ICT & Future Planning (MSIP) (No. 2012027176). No complex statistical methods were necessary for this paper. Institutional Review Board approval was obtained. Written informed consent was waived by the Institutional Review Board. Methodology: retrospective, diagnostic or prognostic study, multicenter study.

References

  1. 1.
    Miller JM, Rochitte CE, Dewey M et al (2008) Diagnostic performance of coronary angiography by 64-row CT. N Engl J Med 359:2324–2336CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hoffmann MH, Shi H, Schmitz BL et al (2005) Noninvasive coronary angiography with multislice computed tomography. JAMA 293:2471–2478CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cordeiro MA, Lima JA (2006) Atherosclerotic plaque characterization by multidetector row computed tomography angiography. J Am Coll Cardiol 47:C40–C47CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hoffmann U, Moselewski F, Nieman K et al (2006) Noninvasive assessment of plaque morphology and composition in culprit and stable lesions in acute coronary syndrome and stable lesions in stable angina by multidetector computed tomography. J Am Coll Cardiol 47:1655–1662CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Motoyama S, Kondo T, Sarai M et al (2007) Multislice computed tomographic characteristics of coronary lesions in acute coronary syndromes. J Am Coll Cardiol 50:319–326CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Motoyama S, Sarai M, Harigaya H et al (2009) Computed tomographic angiography characteristics of atherosclerotic plaques subsequently resulting in acute coronary syndrome. J Am Coll Cardiol 54:49–57CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Stone GW, Maehara A, Lansky AJ et al (2011) A prospective natural-history study of coronary atherosclerosis. N Engl J Med 364:226–235CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Nakazato R, Shalev A, Doh JH et al (2013) Aggregate plaque volume by coronary computed tomography angiography is superior and incremental to luminal narrowing for diagnosis of ischemic lesions of intermediate stenosis severity. J Am Coll Cardiol 62:460–467CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Narula J, Garg P, Achenbach S, Motoyama S, Virmani R, Strauss HW (2008) Arithmetic of vulnerable plaques for noninvasive imaging. Nat Clin Pract Cardiovasc Med 5(Suppl 2):S2–S10CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bischoff B, Meinel FG, Del Prete A, Reiser MF, Becker HC (2013) High-pitch coronary CT angiography in dual-source CT during free breathing vs. breath holding in patients with low heart rates. Eur J Radiol. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2013.09.003 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Min JK, Arsanjani R, Kurabayashi S et al (2013) Rationale and design of the ViCTORY (Validation of an Intracycle CT Motion CORrection Algorithm for Diagnostic AccuracY) trial. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr 7:200–206CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schaap M, Metz CT, van Walsum T et al (2009) Standardized evaluation methodology and reference database for evaluating coronary artery centerline extraction algorithms. Med Image Anal 13:701–714CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Boogers MJ, Broersen A, van Velzen JE et al (2012) Automated quantification of coronary plaque with computed tomography: comparison with intravascular ultrasound using a dedicated registration algorithm for fusion-based quantification. Eur Heart J 33:1007–1016CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    de Graaf MA, Broersen A, Kitslaar PH et al (2013) Automatic quantification and characterization of coronary atherosclerosis with computed tomography coronary angiography: cross-correlation with intravascular ultrasound virtual histology. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 29:1177–1190CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Heo JH, Brugaletta S, Garcia-Garcia HM et al (2011) Reproducibility of intravascular ultrasound iMAP for radiofrequency data analysis: Implications for design of longitudinal studies. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. doi: 10.1002/ccd.23335 Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bruining N, Roelandt JR, Palumbo A et al (2007) Reproducible coronary plaque quantification by multislice computed tomography. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 69:857–865CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hoffmann U, Bamberg F, Chae CU et al (2009) Coronary computed tomography angiography for early triage of patients with acute chest pain: the ROMICAT (Rule Out Myocardial Infarction using Computer Assisted Tomography) trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 53:1642–1650PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kang KW, Chang HJ, Shim H et al (2012) Feasibility of an automatic computer-assisted algorithm for the detection of significant coronary artery disease in patients presenting with acute chest pain. Eur J Radiol 81:e640–e646CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Anders K, Achenbach S, Petit I, Daniel WG, Uder M, Pflederer T (2013) Accuracy of automated software-guided detection of significant coronary artery stenosis by CT angiography: comparison with invasive catheterisation. Eur Radiol 23:1218–1225CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rajiah P, Schoenhagen P (2013) Automated interpretation and reporting of coronary CT coronary angiography. Curr Cardiovasc Imaging Rep 6:282CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hyung-Bok Park
    • 1
    • 2
  • Byoung Kwon Lee
    • 3
  • Sanghoon Shin
    • 1
    • 4
  • Ran Heo
    • 1
    • 5
  • Reza Arsanjani
    • 6
  • Pieter H. Kitslaar
    • 7
    • 8
  • Alexander Broersen
    • 7
  • Jouke Dijkstra
    • 7
  • Sung Gyun Ahn
    • 9
  • James K. Min
    • 10
  • Hyuk-Jae Chang
    • 1
    • 5
  • Myeong-Ki Hong
    • 5
  • Yangsoo Jang
    • 5
  • Namsik Chung
    • 1
    • 5
  1. 1.Yonsei-Cedar Sinai Integrative Cardiovascular Imaging Research CenterYonsei University Health SystemSeoulSouth Korea
  2. 2.Division of Cardiology, Cardiovascular CenterMyongji HospitalGoyangSouth Korea
  3. 3.Division of Cardiology, Gangnam Severance HospitalYonsei University College of MedicineSeoulSouth Korea
  4. 4.Division of CardiologyNational Health Insurance Corporation Ilsan HospitalGoyangSouth Korea
  5. 5.Division of Cardiology, Severance Cardiovascular HospitalYonsei University Health SystemSeoulSouth Korea
  6. 6.Departments of Imaging and Medicine, Cedars-Sinai Heart InstituteCedars-Sinai Medical CenterLos AngelesUSA
  7. 7.Department of Radiology, Division of Image ProcessingLeiden University Medical CenterLeidenThe Netherlands
  8. 8.Medis medical Imaging Systems B.V.LeidenThe Netherlands
  9. 9.Division of CardiologyYonsei University Wonju Severance Christian HospitalWonjuSouth Korea
  10. 10.Institute for Cardiovascular Imaging, Weill-Cornell Medical CollegeNew York-Presbyterian HospitalNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations