Low-dose coronary artery calcium scoring compared to the standard protocol.
Coronary calcium score
attenuation correction
coronary CT
low-dose CT
myocardial perfusion imaging
Journal
Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology
ISSN: 1532-6551
Titre abrégé: J Nucl Cardiol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9423534
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 2023
06 2023
Historique:
received:
25
07
2022
accepted:
19
09
2022
medline:
14
6
2023
pubmed:
27
10
2022
entrez:
26
10
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
We aimed to compare coronary artery calcium scoring (CACS) with computed tomography (CT) with 80 and 120 kVp in a large patient population and to establish whether there is a difference in risk classification between the two scores. Patients with suspected CAD undergoing MPS were included. All underwent standard CACS assessment with 120-kVp tube voltage and with 80 kVp. Two datasets (low-dose and standard) were generated and compared. Risk classes (0 to 25, 25 to 50, 50 to 75, 75 to 90, and > 90%) were recorded. 1511 patients were included (793 males, age 69 ± 9.1 years). There was a very good correlation between scores calculated with 120 and 80 kVp (R = 0.94, R In a large patient population, despite a good correlation between CACS calculated with standard and low-dose CT, there is a systematic underestimation of CACS with the low-dose protocol. This may have an impact especially on the prognostic value of the calcium score, and the established "power of zero" may no longer be warranted if CACS is assessed with low-dose CT.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
We aimed to compare coronary artery calcium scoring (CACS) with computed tomography (CT) with 80 and 120 kVp in a large patient population and to establish whether there is a difference in risk classification between the two scores.
METHODS
Patients with suspected CAD undergoing MPS were included. All underwent standard CACS assessment with 120-kVp tube voltage and with 80 kVp. Two datasets (low-dose and standard) were generated and compared. Risk classes (0 to 25, 25 to 50, 50 to 75, 75 to 90, and > 90%) were recorded.
RESULTS
1511 patients were included (793 males, age 69 ± 9.1 years). There was a very good correlation between scores calculated with 120 and 80 kVp (R = 0.94, R
CONCLUSION
In a large patient population, despite a good correlation between CACS calculated with standard and low-dose CT, there is a systematic underestimation of CACS with the low-dose protocol. This may have an impact especially on the prognostic value of the calcium score, and the established "power of zero" may no longer be warranted if CACS is assessed with low-dose CT.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36289163
doi: 10.1007/s12350-022-03120-3
pii: 10.1007/s12350-022-03120-3
pmc: PMC10261226
doi:
Substances chimiques
Calcium
SY7Q814VUP
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1191-1198Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Acta Radiol. 2016 Sep;57(9):1079-88
pubmed: 26663036
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2000 Oct;175(4):985-92
pubmed: 11000149
Clin Radiol. 2014 Jan;69(1):e17-24
pubmed: 24156801
Arch Intern Med. 2009 Jul 13;169(13):1188-94
pubmed: 19597067
Circulation. 2017 Nov 21;136(21):1993-2005
pubmed: 28847895
Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2018 Dec 1;19(12):1362-1371
pubmed: 29432592
Am J Cardiol. 2001 Jun 15;87(12):1335-9
pubmed: 11397349
J Am Coll Cardiol. 1990 Mar 15;15(4):827-32
pubmed: 2407762
Health Phys. 2019 May;116(5):736-745
pubmed: 30908322
Sci Rep. 2021 Aug 31;11(1):17450
pubmed: 34465816
N Engl J Med. 2008 Mar 27;358(13):1336-45
pubmed: 18367736
J Nucl Cardiol. 2020 Feb;27(1):228-237
pubmed: 29923103
Swiss Med Wkly. 2019 Feb 11;149:w20014
pubmed: 30741398
JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2015 Feb;8(2):134-44
pubmed: 25677886
Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2016 Nov;17(11):1305-1314
pubmed: 26705490
Med Phys. 2017 Mar;44(3):1040-1049
pubmed: 28112409
Invest Radiol. 2006 Sep;41(9):668-73
pubmed: 16896301
Circulation. 2000 Feb 29;101(8):850-5
pubmed: 10694523
J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2013 Jan-Feb;7(1):32-8
pubmed: 23333186
Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2015 Apr;16(4):358-63
pubmed: 25381303