Comparison of Two Contemporary Quantitative Atherosclerotic Plaque Assessment Tools for Coronary Computed Tomography Angiography: Single-Center Analysis and Multi-Center Patient Cohort Validation.

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.

Dynamic Perfusion Computed Tomography for the Assessment of Concomitant Coronary Artery Disease in Patients with a History of Percutaneous Transluminal Angioplasty for Chronic Limb-Threatening Ischemia-A Pilot Study.

BACKGROUND: Chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) is associated with high rates of long-term cardiovascular mortality. Exercise stress testing to detect obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) can be difficult in this subset of patients due to inability to undergo exercise testing, presence of balanced ischemia and severe coronary artery calcification (CAC). AIM: To test the feasibility of regadenoson stress dynamic perfusion computed tomography (DPCT) in CLTI patients. METHODS: Between 2018 and 2023, coronary computed tomography angiography (CTA) and, in the case of a calcium score higher than 400, DPCT, were performed in 25 CLTI patients with a history of endovascular revascularization. RESULTS: Of the 25 patients, 19 had a calcium score higher than 400, requiring DPCT image acquisition. Obstructive CAD could be ruled out in 10 of the 25 patients. Of the 15 CTA/DPCT+ patients, 13 proceeded to coronary angiography (CAG). Revascularization was necessary in all 13 patients. In these 13 patients, vessel-based sensitivity and specificity of coronary CTA/DPCT as compared to invasive evaluation was 75%, respectively. At follow-up (27 ± 21 months) there was no statistically significant difference in all-cause mortality between CTA/DPCT- positive and -negative patients (p = 0.065). CONCLUSIONS: Despite a high prevalence of severe CAC, coronary CTA complemented by DPCT may be a feasible method to detect obstructive and functionally significant CAD in CLTI patients.

Model-based adaptive filter for a dedicated cardiovascular CT scanner: Assessment of image noise, sharpness and quality.

BACKGROUND: Filtered back projection (FBP) and adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction (ASIR) are ubiquitously applied in the reconstruction of coronary CT angiography (CCTA) datasets. However, currently no data is available on the impact of a model-based adaptive filter (MBAF2), recently developed for a dedicated cardiac scanner. PURPOSE: Our aim was to determine the effect of MBAF2 on subjective and objective image quality parameters of coronary arteries on CCTA. METHODS: Images of 102 consecutive patients referred for CCTA were evaluated. Four reconstructions of coronary images (FBP, ASIR, MBAF2, ASIR + MBAF2) were co-registered and cross-section were assessed for qualitative (graininess, sharpness, overall image quality) and quantitative [image noise, signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR)] image quality parameters. Image noise and signal were measured in the aortic root and the left main coronary artery, respectively. Graininess, sharpness, and overall image quality was assessed on a 4-point Likert scale. RESULTS: As compared to FBP, ASIR, and MBAF2, ASIR + MBAF2 resulted in reduced image noise [53.1 ± 12.3, 30.6 ± 8.5, 36.3 ± 4.2, 26.3 ± 4.0 Hounsfield units (HU), respectively; p < 0.001], improved SNR (8.4 ± 2.6, 14.1 ± 3.6, 11.8 ± 2.3, 16.3 ± 3.3 HU, respectively; p < 0.001) and CNR (9.4 ± 2.7, 15.9 ± 4.0, 13.3 ± 2.5, 18.3 ± 3.5 HU, respectively; p < 0.001). No difference in sharpness was observed amongst the reconstructions (p = 0.08). Although ASIR + MBAF2 was non-superior to ASIR regarding overall image quality (p = 0.99), it performed better than FBP (p < 0.001) and MBAF2 (p < 0.001) alone. CONCLUSION: The combination of ASIR and MBAF2 resulted in reduced image noise and improved SNR and CNR. The implementation of MBAF2 in clinical practice may result in improved noise reduction performance and could potentiate radiation dose reduction.

Calcium scoring: a personalized probability assessment predicts the need for additional or alternative testing to coronary CT angiography.

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether anthropometrics, clinical risk factors, and coronary artery calcium score (CACS) can predict the need of further testing after coronary CT angiography (CTA) due to non-diagnostic image quality and/or the presence of significant stenosis. METHODS: Consecutive patients who underwent coronary CTA due to suspected coronary artery disease (CAD) were included in our retrospective analysis. We used multivariate logistic regression and receiver operating characteristics analysis containing anthropometric factors: body mass index, heart rate, and rhythm irregularity (model 1); and parameters used for pre-test likelihood estimation: age, sex, and type of angina (model 2); and also added total calcium score (model 3) to predict downstream testing. RESULTS: We analyzed 4120 (45.7% female, 57.9 ± 12.1 years) patients. Model 3 significantly outperformed models 1 and 2 (area under the curve, 0.84 [95% CI 0.83-0.86] vs. 0.56 [95% CI 0.54-0.58] and 0.72 [95% CI 0.70-0.74], p < 0.001). For patients with sinus rhythm of 50 bpm, in case of non-specific angina, CACS above 435, 756, and 944; in atypical angina CACS above 381, 702, and 890; and in typical angina CACS above 316, 636, and 824 correspond to 50%, 80%, and 90% probability of further testing, respectively. However, higher heart rates and arrhythmias significantly decrease these cutoffs (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: CACS significantly increases the ability to identify patients in whom deferral from coronary CTA may be advised as CTA does not lead to a final decision regarding CAD management. Our results provide individualized cutoff values for given probabilities of the need of additional testing, which may facilitate personalized decision-making to perform or defer coronary CTA. KEY POINTS: • Anthropometric parameters on their own are insufficient predictors of downstream testing. Adding parameters of the Diamond and Forrester pre-test likelihood test significantly increases the power of prediction. • Total CACS is the most important independent predictor to identify patients in whom coronary CTA may not be recommended as CTA does not lead to a final decision regarding CAD management. • We determined specific CACS cutoff values based on the probability of downstream testing by angina-, arrhythmia-, and heart rate-based groups of patients to help individualize patient management.