Systematic analysis on the relationship between luminal enhancement, convolution kernel, plaque density, and luminal diameter of coronary artery stenosis: a CT phantom study

To systematically investigate into the relationships between luminal enhancement, convolution kernel, plaque density, and stenosis severity in coronary computed tomography (CT) angiography. A coronary phantom including 63 stenoses (stenosis severity, 10–90 %; plaque densities, −100 to 1,000 HU) was loaded with increasing solutions of contrast material (luminal enhancement, 0–700 HU) and scanned in an anthropomorphic chest. CT data was acquired with prospective triggering using 64-section dual-source CT; reconstructions were performed with soft-tissue (B26f) and sharp convolution kernels (B46f). Two blinded and independent readers quantitatively assessed luminal diameter and CT number of plaque using electronic calipers. Measurement bias between phantom dimensions and CT measurements were calculated. Multivariate linear regression models identified predictors of bias. Inter- and intra-reader agreements of luminal diameter and CT number measurements were excellent (ICCs > 0.91, p < 0.01, each). Measurement bias of luminal diameter and plaque density was significantly (p < 0.01, each) lower (−12 % and 58 HU, respectively) with B46f as opposed to B26f, especially in plaque densities >200 HU. Measurement bias was significantly (p < 0.01, each) correlated (ρ = 0.37–55 and ρ = −0.70–85) with the differences between luminal enhancement and plaque density. In multivariate models, bias of luminal diameter assessment with CT was correlated with plaque density (β = 0.09, p < 0.05). Convolution kernel (β = −0.29 and −0.38), stenosis severity (β = −0.45 and −0.38), and luminal enhancement (β = −0.11 and −0.29) represented independent (p < 0.05,each) predictors of measurement bias of luminal diameter and plaque number, respectively. Significant independent relationships exist between luminal enhancement, convolution kernel, plaque density, and luminal diameter, which have to be taken into account when performing, evaluating, and interpreting coronary CT angiography.

[1]  S. Achenbach,et al.  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. , 2006, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[2]  Filippo Cademartiri,et al.  Influence of convolution filtering on coronary plaque attenuation values: observations in an ex vivo model of multislice computed tomography coronary angiography , 2007, European Radiology.

[3]  U. Schoepf,et al.  Incremental prognostic value of different components of coronary atherosclerotic plaque at cardiac CT angiography beyond coronary calcification in patients with acute chest pain. , 2012, Radiology.

[4]  Oliver Gaemperli,et al.  Abstract 3413: Prognostic Value of Multi-slice Computed Tomography and Gated Single Photon Emission Computed Tomography in a Cohort of 426 Patients with Known or Suspected Coronary Artery Disease , 2007 .

[5]  Filippo Cademartiri,et al.  Higher intracoronary attenuation improves diagnostic accuracy in MDCT coronary angiography. , 2006, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[6]  Yun Shen,et al.  Radiation dose, image quality, stenosis measurement, and CT densitometry using ECG-triggered coronary 64-MDCT angiography: a phantom study. , 2008, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[7]  Jeroen J. Bax,et al.  Prognostic value of multislice computed tomography coronary angiography in patients with known or suspected coronary artery disease. , 2007, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[8]  J. Min,et al.  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 , 2010, Journal of cardiovascular computed tomography.

[9]  C. Fink,et al.  Evaluation of heavily calcified vessels with coronary CT angiography: comparison of iterative and filtered back projection image reconstruction. , 2011, Radiology.

[10]  J. Jung,et al.  Coronary CT angiography in patients with high calcium score: evaluation of plaque characteristics and diagnostic accuracy , 2011, The International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging.

[11]  H. Scheffel,et al.  Complementary value of cardiac FDG PET and CT for the characterization of atherosclerotic disease. , 2011, Radiographics : a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc.

[12]  Filippo Cademartiri,et al.  Influence of intracoronary attenuation on coronary plaque measurements using multislice computed tomography: observations in an ex vivo model of coronary computed tomography angiography , 2005, European Radiology.

[13]  Konstantin Nikolaou,et al.  Accuracy of multidetector spiral computed tomography in identifying and differentiating the composition of coronary atherosclerotic plaques: a comparative study with intracoronary ultrasound. , 2004, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[14]  Filippo Cademartiri,et al.  Influence of increasing convolution kernel filtering on plaque imaging with multislice CT using an ex-vivo model of coronary angiography. , 2005, La Radiologia medica.

[15]  S. Furui,et al.  Measurement of vascular diameter in vitro by automated software for CT angiography: effects of inner diameter, density of contrast medium, and convolution kernel. , 2004, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[16]  Rainer Raupach,et al.  64-slice multidetector coronary CT angiography: in vitro evaluation of 68 different stents , 2006, European Radiology.

[17]  J. R. Landis,et al.  The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. , 1977, Biometrics.

[18]  R. Bauer,et al.  Noncalcified atherosclerotic plaque burden at coronary CT angiography: a better predictor of ischemia at stress myocardial perfusion imaging than calcium score and stenosis severity. , 2009, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[19]  S. Achenbach,et al.  Influence of slice thickness and reconstruction kernel on the computed tomographic attenuation of coronary atherosclerotic plaque. , 2010, Journal of cardiovascular computed tomography.

[20]  R. Günther,et al.  64-slice computed tomography assessment of coronary artery stents: a phantom study , 2006, Acta radiologica.

[21]  H. Alkadhi,et al.  Accuracy of quantitative coronary angiography with computed tomography and its dependency on plaque composition , 2008, The International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging.

[22]  W. Kalender,et al.  Assessment of calcium scoring performance in cardiac computed tomography , 2003, European Radiology.

[23]  S. Achenbach,et al.  Quantification of coronary stenosis by dual source computed tomography in patients: a comparative study with intravascular ultrasound and invasive angiography. , 2012, European journal of radiology.

[24]  S. Abbara ACCF/SCCT/ACR/AHA/ASE/ASNC/NASCI/SCAI/SCMR 2010 Appropriate Use Criteria for Cardiac Computed Tomography , 2011 .