Reproducibility of calcium scoring of the coronary arteries: comparison between different vendors and iterative reconstructions

Author:

Choi Kyu Sung1,Lee Whal234ORCID,Jung Joon Hyung5,Park Eun-Ah234

Affiliation:

1. Graduate School of Medical Science and Engineering, Korea Advanced Institute for Science and Technology (KAIST), Daejeon, Republic of Korea

2. Department of Radiology, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea

3. Department of Radiology, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea

4. Institute of Radiation Medicine, Seoul National University Medical Research Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea

5. Department of Neuropsychiatry, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea

Abstract

Background The coronary artery calcium scoring (CCS) has been widely used for cardiac risk stratification for asymptomatic patients. Purpose To assess the reproducibility of CCS performed on four different computed tomography (CT) scanners, and compare the variability between two reconstruction algorithms, filtered back projection (FBP), and iterative reconstruction (IR). Material and Methods A CCS phantom was made from agar and contained 23 pieces of chicken bones. The phantom was repeatedly scanned using four different CT scanners: Toshiba; GE; Philips; and Siemens. Images were reconstructed using FBP and IR. Agatston and volume scores of total bone fragments were calculated and the overall differences between the instruments were evaluated using the Friedman test. Comparison of the Agatston and volume scores between the two reconstruction algorithms, for each instrument, was evaluated using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. Results The difference in the Agatston scores was significantly different between the four machines ( P = 0.001). The Toshiba scanner yielded the highest score followed by Philips, GE, and Siemens scanners. There was no difference in the CCS evaluated using the two reconstruction algorithms, except in case of the Siemens scanner ( P = 0.032). Conclusion CCS performed on different scanners varied significantly. In the Toshiba, Philips, and GE scanners, there was no significant difference in the CCS determined using either an IR or the FBP algorithm. In the Siemens scanner, applying the IR algorithm resulted in a slightly different scores, which might not be clinically significant.

Publisher

SAGE Publications

Cited by 2 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3