Cargando…
Low-dose coronary artery calcium scoring compared to the standard protocol
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 wer...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer International Publishing
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10261226/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36289163 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12350-022-03120-3 |
_version_ | 1785057906242093056 |
---|---|
author | Allio, Ileana Rosely Caobelli, Federico Popescu, Cristina Elena Haaf, Philip Alberts, Ian Frey, Simon M. Zellweger, Michael J. |
author_facet | Allio, Ileana Rosely Caobelli, Federico Popescu, Cristina Elena Haaf, Philip Alberts, Ian Frey, Simon M. Zellweger, Michael J. |
author_sort | Allio, Ileana Rosely |
collection | PubMed |
description | 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(2) = 0.88, P < .001), with Bland–Altman limits of agreement of − 563.5 to 871.9 and a bias of − 154.2. The proportion of patients assigned to the < 25% percentile class (P = .03) and with CACS = 0 differed between the two protocols (n = 264 vs 437, P < .001). 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. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12350-022-03120-3. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10261226 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | Springer International Publishing |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-102612262023-06-15 Low-dose coronary artery calcium scoring compared to the standard protocol Allio, Ileana Rosely Caobelli, Federico Popescu, Cristina Elena Haaf, Philip Alberts, Ian Frey, Simon M. Zellweger, Michael J. J Nucl Cardiol Original Article 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(2) = 0.88, P < .001), with Bland–Altman limits of agreement of − 563.5 to 871.9 and a bias of − 154.2. The proportion of patients assigned to the < 25% percentile class (P = .03) and with CACS = 0 differed between the two protocols (n = 264 vs 437, P < .001). 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. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12350-022-03120-3. Springer International Publishing 2022-10-26 2023 /pmc/articles/PMC10261226/ /pubmed/36289163 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12350-022-03120-3 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Original Article Allio, Ileana Rosely Caobelli, Federico Popescu, Cristina Elena Haaf, Philip Alberts, Ian Frey, Simon M. Zellweger, Michael J. Low-dose coronary artery calcium scoring compared to the standard protocol |
title | Low-dose coronary artery calcium scoring compared to the standard protocol |
title_full | Low-dose coronary artery calcium scoring compared to the standard protocol |
title_fullStr | Low-dose coronary artery calcium scoring compared to the standard protocol |
title_full_unstemmed | Low-dose coronary artery calcium scoring compared to the standard protocol |
title_short | Low-dose coronary artery calcium scoring compared to the standard protocol |
title_sort | low-dose coronary artery calcium scoring compared to the standard protocol |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10261226/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36289163 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12350-022-03120-3 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT allioileanarosely lowdosecoronaryarterycalciumscoringcomparedtothestandardprotocol AT caobellifederico lowdosecoronaryarterycalciumscoringcomparedtothestandardprotocol AT popescucristinaelena lowdosecoronaryarterycalciumscoringcomparedtothestandardprotocol AT haafphilip lowdosecoronaryarterycalciumscoringcomparedtothestandardprotocol AT albertsian lowdosecoronaryarterycalciumscoringcomparedtothestandardprotocol AT freysimonm lowdosecoronaryarterycalciumscoringcomparedtothestandardprotocol AT zellwegermichaelj lowdosecoronaryarterycalciumscoringcomparedtothestandardprotocol |