Comparison of Two Contemporary Quantitative Atherosclerotic Plaque Assessment Tools for Coronary Computed Tomography Angiography: Single-Center Analysis and Multi-Center Patient Cohort Validation.

Autor: Weichsel L; GRN Hospital Weinheim, Cardiology, Vascular Medicine & Pneumology, 69469 Weinheim, Germany.; Cardiac Imaging Center Weinheim, Hector Foundations, 69469 Weinheim, Germany., Giesen A; GRN Hospital Weinheim, Cardiology, Vascular Medicine & Pneumology, 69469 Weinheim, Germany.; Cardiac Imaging Center Weinheim, Hector Foundations, 69469 Weinheim, Germany., André F; Department of Cardiology, Angiology and Pneumology, University of Heidelberg, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany.; DZHK (German Centre for Cardiovascular Research), Partner Site Heidelberg/Mannheim, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany., Renker M; Department of Cardiology, Campus Kerckhoff, Justus Liebig University Giessen, 61231 Bad Nauheim, Germany.; DZHK (German Centre for Cardiovascular Research), Partner Site Rhein Main, 61231 Bad Nauheim, Germany., Baumann S; Department of Cardiology, District Hospital Bergstraße, 64646 Heppenheim, Germany.; First Department of Medicine-Cardiology, University Medical Center Mannheim, 68167 Mannheim, Germany., Breitbart P; Department of Cardiology and Angiology, Medical Center-University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, 79189 Bad Krozingen, Germany., Beer M; Department for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Ulm, 89081 Ulm, Germany., Maurovitch-Horvat P; Heart and Vascular Center, Semmelweis University, 1122 Budapest, Hungary., Szilveszter B; Heart and Vascular Center, Semmelweis University, 1122 Budapest, Hungary., Vattay B; Heart and Vascular Center, Semmelweis University, 1122 Budapest, Hungary., Buss SJ; MVZ-DRZ Heidelberg, 69126 Heidelberg, Germany., Marwan M; Department of Cardiology, University of Erlangen, 91054 Erlangen, Germany., Giannopoulos AA; Department of Nuclear Medicine, Cardiac Imaging, University Hospital Zurich, 8091 Zurich, Switzerland., Kelle S; Deutsches Herzzentrum der Charité, Department of Cardiology, Angiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Charité-University Medicine Berlin, 10117 Berlin, Germany., Frey N; Department of Cardiology, Angiology and Pneumology, University of Heidelberg, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany.; DZHK (German Centre for Cardiovascular Research), Partner Site Heidelberg/Mannheim, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany., Korosoglou G; GRN Hospital Weinheim, Cardiology, Vascular Medicine & Pneumology, 69469 Weinheim, Germany.; Cardiac Imaging Center Weinheim, Hector Foundations, 69469 Weinheim, Germany.
Jazyk: angličtina
Zdroj: Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) [Diagnostics (Basel)] 2024 Jan 09; Vol. 14 (2). Date of Electronic Publication: 2024 Jan 09.
DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics14020154
Abstrakt: Background: Coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) provides non-invasive quantitative assessments of plaque burden and composition. The quantitative assessment of plaque components requires the use of analysis software that provides reproducible semi-automated plaque detection and analysis. However, commercially available plaque analysis software can vary widely in the degree of automation, resulting in differences in terms of reproducibility and time spent.
Aim: To compare the reproducibility and time spent of two CCTA analysis software tools using different algorithms for the quantitative assessment of coronary plaque volumes and composition in two independent patient cohorts.
Methods: The study population included 100 patients from two different cohorts: 50 patients from a single-center (Siemens Healthineers, SOMATOM Force (DSCT)) and another 50 patients from a multi-center study (5 different > 64 slice CT scanner types). Quantitative measurements of total calcified and non-calcified plaque volume of the right coronary artery (RCA), left anterior descending (LAD), and left circumflex coronary artery (LCX) were performed on a total of 300 coronaries by two independent readers, using two different CCTA analysis software tools (Tool #1: Siemens Healthineers, syngo.via Frontier CT Coronary Plaque Analysis and Tool #2: Siemens Healthineers, successor CT Coronary Plaque Analysis prototype). In addition, the total time spent for the analysis was recorded with both programs.
Results: The patients in cohorts 1 and 2 were 62.8 ± 10.2 and 70.9 ± 11.7 years old, respectively, 10 (20.0%) and 35 (70.0%) were female and 34 (68.0%) and 20 (40.0%), respectively, had hyperlipidemia. In Cohort #1, the inter- and intra-observer variabilities for the assessment of plaque volumes per patient for Tool #1 versus Tool #2 were 22.8%, 22.0%, and 26.0% versus 2.3%, 3.9%, and 2.5% and 19.7%, 21.4%, and 22.1% versus 0.2%, 0.1%, and 0.3%, respectively, for total, noncalcified, and calcified lesions ( p < 0.001 for all between Tools #1 and 2 both for inter- and intra-observer). The inter- and intra-observer variabilities using Tool #2 remained low at 2.9%, 2.7%, and 3.0% and 3.8%, 3.7%, and 4.0%, respectively, for total, non-calcified, and calcified lesions in Cohort #2. For each dataset, the median processing time was higher for Tool #1 versus Tool #2 (459.5 s IQR = 348.0-627.0 versus 208.5 s; IQR = 198.0-216.0) ( p < 0.001).
Conclusion: The plaque analysis Tool #2 (CT-guided PCI) encompassing a higher degree of automated support required less manual editing, was more time-efficient, and showed a higher intra- and inter-observer reproducibility for the quantitative assessment of plaque volumes both in a representative single-center and in a multi-center validation cohort.
Databáze: MEDLINE
Externí odkaz:
Nepřihlášeným uživatelům se plný text nezobrazuje