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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Pascart, Tristan, Grandjean, Agathe, Norberciak, Laurène, Ducoulombier, Vincent, Motte, Marguerite, Luraschi, Hélène, Vandecandelaere, Marie, Godart, Catherine, Houvenagel, Eric, Namane, Nasser, Budzik, Jean-François
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