RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) provides non-invasive quantitative assessments of plaque burden and composition. The quantitative assessment of plaque components requires the use of analysis software that provides reproducible semi-automated plaque detection and analysis. However, commercially available plaque analysis software can vary widely in the degree of automation, resulting in differences in terms of reproducibility and time spent. AIM: To compare the reproducibility and time spent of two CCTA analysis software tools using different algorithms for the quantitative assessment of coronary plaque volumes and composition in two independent patient cohorts. METHODS: The study population included 100 patients from two different cohorts: 50 patients from a single-center (Siemens Healthineers, SOMATOM Force (DSCT)) and another 50 patients from a multi-center study (5 different > 64 slice CT scanner types). Quantitative measurements of total calcified and non-calcified plaque volume of the right coronary artery (RCA), left anterior descending (LAD), and left circumflex coronary artery (LCX) were performed on a total of 300 coronaries by two independent readers, using two different CCTA analysis software tools (Tool #1: Siemens Healthineers, syngo.via Frontier CT Coronary Plaque Analysis and Tool #2: Siemens Healthineers, successor CT Coronary Plaque Analysis prototype). In addition, the total time spent for the analysis was recorded with both programs. RESULTS: The patients in cohorts 1 and 2 were 62.8 ± 10.2 and 70.9 ± 11.7 years old, respectively, 10 (20.0%) and 35 (70.0%) were female and 34 (68.0%) and 20 (40.0%), respectively, had hyperlipidemia. In Cohort #1, the inter- and intra-observer variabilities for the assessment of plaque volumes per patient for Tool #1 versus Tool #2 were 22.8%, 22.0%, and 26.0% versus 2.3%, 3.9%, and 2.5% and 19.7%, 21.4%, and 22.1% versus 0.2%, 0.1%, and 0.3%, respectively, for total, noncalcified, and calcified lesions (p < 0.001 for all between Tools #1 and 2 both for inter- and intra-observer). The inter- and intra-observer variabilities using Tool #2 remained low at 2.9%, 2.7%, and 3.0% and 3.8%, 3.7%, and 4.0%, respectively, for total, non-calcified, and calcified lesions in Cohort #2. For each dataset, the median processing time was higher for Tool #1 versus Tool #2 (459.5 s IQR = 348.0-627.0 versus 208.5 s; IQR = 198.0-216.0) (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The plaque analysis Tool #2 (CT-guided PCI) encompassing a higher degree of automated support required less manual editing, was more time-efficient, and showed a higher intra- and inter-observer reproducibility for the quantitative assessment of plaque volumes both in a representative single-center and in a multi-center validation cohort.
RESUMO
Background: We aimed to evaluate the feasibility of a non-contrast time-of-flight magnetic resonance angiography (TOF-MRA) protocol for the pre-procedural access route assessment of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in comparison with contrast-enhanced cardiac dual-source computed tomography angiography (CTA). Methods and Results: In total, 51 consecutive patients (mean age: 82.69 ± 5.69 years) who had undergone a pre-TAVI cardiac CTA received TOF-MRA for a pre-procedural access route assessment. The MRA image quality was rated as very good (median of 5 [IQR 4-5] on a five-point Likert scale), with only four examinations rated as non-diagnostic. The TOF-MRA systematically underestimated the minimal effective vessel diameter in comparison with CTA (for the effective vessel diameter in mm, the right common iliac artery (CIA)/external iliac artery (EIA)/common femoral artery (CFA) MRA vs. CTA was 8.04 ± 1.46 vs. 8.37 ± 1.54 (p < 0.0001) and the left CIA/EIA/CFA MRA vs. CTA was 8.07 ± 1.32 vs. 8.28 ± 1.34 (p < 0.0001)). The absolute difference between the MRA and CTA was small (for the Bland-Altman analyses in mm, the right CIA/EIA/CFA was -0.36 ± 0.77 and the left CIA/EIA/CFA was -0.25 ± 0.61). The overall correlation between the MRA and CTA measurements was very good (with a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.87 (p < 0.0001) for the right CIA/EIA/CFA and a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.9 (p < 0.0001) for the left CIA/EIA/CFA). The feasibility agreement between the MRA and CTA for transfemoral access was good (the right CIA/EIA/CFA agreement was 97.9% and the left CIA/EIA/CFA agreement was 95.7%, Kohen's kappa: 0.477 (p = 0.001)). Conclusions: The TOF-MRA protocol was feasible for the assessment of the access route in an all-comer pre-TAVI population. This protocol might be a reliable technique for patients at an increased risk of contrast-induced nephropathy.