Cargando…
Ultrasonography and dual-energy computed tomography provide different quantification of urate burden in gout: results from a cross-sectional study
BACKGROUND: Ultrasonography (US) and dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) can assess urate burden in gout. The objective of this study was to compare the quantification of urate deposition provided by US to the one provided by DECT. METHODS: Patients with a diagnosis of gout were prospectively rec...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2017
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5521183/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28732526 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13075-017-1381-2 |
_version_ | 1783251929418170368 |
---|---|
author | Pascart, Tristan Grandjean, Agathe Norberciak, Laurène Ducoulombier, Vincent Motte, Marguerite Luraschi, Hélène Vandecandelaere, Marie Godart, Catherine Houvenagel, Eric Namane, Nasser Budzik, Jean-François |
author_facet | Pascart, Tristan Grandjean, Agathe Norberciak, Laurène Ducoulombier, Vincent Motte, Marguerite Luraschi, Hélène Vandecandelaere, Marie Godart, Catherine Houvenagel, Eric Namane, Nasser Budzik, Jean-François |
author_sort | Pascart, Tristan |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Ultrasonography (US) and dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) can assess urate burden in gout. The objective of this study was to compare the quantification of urate deposition provided by US to the one provided by DECT. METHODS: Patients with a diagnosis of gout were prospectively recruited to undergo quantification of urate deposition using US and DECT. US examination for tophi and the double contour (DC) sign was performed on the knees and feet and corresponding DECT scans provided volumes of tophi and of overall urate deposition. The primary endpoint was the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) of the volume of the index tophus measured by US and DECT and its 95% confidence interval (CI 95%). RESULTS: Of the 64 patients included, 34 presented with at least one tophus on US. DECT inter-reader agreement for urate deposition was perfect with an ICC of 1 (1–1) and good for the measurement of the index tophus with an ICC of 0.69 (0.47–0.83). The ICC for the measurement of the index tophus between the two techniques was poor with a value of 0.45 (0.1–0.71). The average ratio between the index tophi volume as assessed by DECT and US was 0.65. The number of DC-positive joints did not correlate with DECT volume of overall deposits (Spearman correlation coefficient of 0.23). CONCLUSIONS: DECT measurements of tophi give smaller volumes to the same tophi measured with US, and US signs of urate deposition in joints do not correlate with overall DECT volumes of extra-articular deposition. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13075-017-1381-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5521183 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2017 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-55211832017-07-26 Ultrasonography and dual-energy computed tomography provide different quantification of urate burden in gout: results from a cross-sectional study Pascart, Tristan Grandjean, Agathe Norberciak, Laurène Ducoulombier, Vincent Motte, Marguerite Luraschi, Hélène Vandecandelaere, Marie Godart, Catherine Houvenagel, Eric Namane, Nasser Budzik, Jean-François Arthritis Res Ther Research Article BACKGROUND: Ultrasonography (US) and dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) can assess urate burden in gout. The objective of this study was to compare the quantification of urate deposition provided by US to the one provided by DECT. METHODS: Patients with a diagnosis of gout were prospectively recruited to undergo quantification of urate deposition using US and DECT. US examination for tophi and the double contour (DC) sign was performed on the knees and feet and corresponding DECT scans provided volumes of tophi and of overall urate deposition. The primary endpoint was the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) of the volume of the index tophus measured by US and DECT and its 95% confidence interval (CI 95%). RESULTS: Of the 64 patients included, 34 presented with at least one tophus on US. DECT inter-reader agreement for urate deposition was perfect with an ICC of 1 (1–1) and good for the measurement of the index tophus with an ICC of 0.69 (0.47–0.83). The ICC for the measurement of the index tophus between the two techniques was poor with a value of 0.45 (0.1–0.71). The average ratio between the index tophi volume as assessed by DECT and US was 0.65. The number of DC-positive joints did not correlate with DECT volume of overall deposits (Spearman correlation coefficient of 0.23). CONCLUSIONS: DECT measurements of tophi give smaller volumes to the same tophi measured with US, and US signs of urate deposition in joints do not correlate with overall DECT volumes of extra-articular deposition. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13075-017-1381-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2017-07-21 2017 /pmc/articles/PMC5521183/ /pubmed/28732526 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13075-017-1381-2 Text en © The Author(s). 2017 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Pascart, Tristan Grandjean, Agathe Norberciak, Laurène Ducoulombier, Vincent Motte, Marguerite Luraschi, Hélène Vandecandelaere, Marie Godart, Catherine Houvenagel, Eric Namane, Nasser Budzik, Jean-François Ultrasonography and dual-energy computed tomography provide different quantification of urate burden in gout: results from a cross-sectional study |
title | Ultrasonography and dual-energy computed tomography provide different quantification of urate burden in gout: results from a cross-sectional study |
title_full | Ultrasonography and dual-energy computed tomography provide different quantification of urate burden in gout: results from a cross-sectional study |
title_fullStr | Ultrasonography and dual-energy computed tomography provide different quantification of urate burden in gout: results from a cross-sectional study |
title_full_unstemmed | Ultrasonography and dual-energy computed tomography provide different quantification of urate burden in gout: results from a cross-sectional study |
title_short | Ultrasonography and dual-energy computed tomography provide different quantification of urate burden in gout: results from a cross-sectional study |
title_sort | ultrasonography and dual-energy computed tomography provide different quantification of urate burden in gout: results from a cross-sectional study |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5521183/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28732526 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13075-017-1381-2 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT pascarttristan ultrasonographyanddualenergycomputedtomographyprovidedifferentquantificationofurateburdeningoutresultsfromacrosssectionalstudy AT grandjeanagathe ultrasonographyanddualenergycomputedtomographyprovidedifferentquantificationofurateburdeningoutresultsfromacrosssectionalstudy AT norberciaklaurene ultrasonographyanddualenergycomputedtomographyprovidedifferentquantificationofurateburdeningoutresultsfromacrosssectionalstudy AT ducoulombiervincent ultrasonographyanddualenergycomputedtomographyprovidedifferentquantificationofurateburdeningoutresultsfromacrosssectionalstudy AT mottemarguerite ultrasonographyanddualenergycomputedtomographyprovidedifferentquantificationofurateburdeningoutresultsfromacrosssectionalstudy AT luraschihelene ultrasonographyanddualenergycomputedtomographyprovidedifferentquantificationofurateburdeningoutresultsfromacrosssectionalstudy AT vandecandelaeremarie ultrasonographyanddualenergycomputedtomographyprovidedifferentquantificationofurateburdeningoutresultsfromacrosssectionalstudy AT godartcatherine ultrasonographyanddualenergycomputedtomographyprovidedifferentquantificationofurateburdeningoutresultsfromacrosssectionalstudy AT houvenageleric ultrasonographyanddualenergycomputedtomographyprovidedifferentquantificationofurateburdeningoutresultsfromacrosssectionalstudy AT namanenasser ultrasonographyanddualenergycomputedtomographyprovidedifferentquantificationofurateburdeningoutresultsfromacrosssectionalstudy AT budzikjeanfrancois ultrasonographyanddualenergycomputedtomographyprovidedifferentquantificationofurateburdeningoutresultsfromacrosssectionalstudy |