Comparison of Two Contemporary Quantitative Atherosclerotic Plaque Assessment Tools for Coronary Computed Tomography Angiography: Single-Center Analysis and Multi-Center Patient Cohort Validation.
Diagnostics (Basel)
; 14(2)2024 Jan 09.
Article
in En
| MEDLINE
| ID: mdl-38248031
ABSTRACT
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.
Full text:
1
Collection:
01-internacional
Database:
MEDLINE
Type of study:
Clinical_trials
Language:
En
Journal:
Diagnostics (Basel)
Year:
2024
Document type:
Article
Affiliation country:
Germany
Country of publication:
Switzerland