Accuracy of noninvasive coronary stenosis quantification of different commercially available dedicated software packages

Journal of Computer Assisted Tomography

Volumn 33, Issue 4, 2009, Pages 505-512

  Dikkers, Riksta ^a   Willems, Tineke P ^a   De Jonge, Gonda J ^a   Marquering, Henk A ^b   Greuter, Marcel J W ^a   Van Ooijen, Peter M A ^a   Van Der Weide, Marijke C Jansen ^a   Oudkerk, Matthijs ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER GRONINGEN   (Netherlands)

^b LEIDEN UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Multidetector computed tomography; Postprocessing; Stenosis detection; Stenosis quantification

Indexed keywords

HEART; MULTIDETECTOR COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY; NONINVASIVE MEDICAL PROCEDURES; PHANTOMS;

ABSOLUTE DIFFERENCE; AUTOMATIC MEASUREMENTS; CORONARY ARTERY STENOSIS; CORONARY STENOSIS; POSTPROCESSING; STENOSE QUANTIFICATION; STENOSES; STENOSIS DETECTION; STENOSIS MEASUREMENT; VESSEL PHANTOM;

SOFTWARE PACKAGES;

ARTERY DIAMETER; ARTICLE; COMPUTER PROGRAM; CONTROLLED STUDY; CORONARY ARTERY OBSTRUCTION; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DISEASE SEVERITY; MULTIDETECTOR COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY; PHANTOM; PRIORITY JOURNAL; VESSEL;

EID: 68949111986     PISSN: 03638715     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/RCT.0b013e3181888363     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Scanlon PJ, Faxon DP, Audet AM, et al. ACC/AHA guidelines for coronary angiography. A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on practice guidelines (Committee on Coronary Angiography). Developed in collaboration with the Society for Cardiac Angiography and Interventions. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1999;33:1756Y1824.
2. Schoenhagen P, Stillman AE, Garcia MJ, et al. Coronary artery imaging with multidetector computed tomography: a call for an evidence-based, multidisciplinary approach. Am Heart J. 2006;151:945Y948.
3. Stillman AE, Oudkerk M, Ackerman M, et al. Use of multidetector computed tomography for the assessment of acute chest pain: a consensus statement of the North American Society of Cardiac Imaging and the European Society of Cardiac Radiology. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2007;23:415Y427.
4. Achenbach S, Ropers D, Kuettner A, et al. Contrast-enhanced coronary artery visualization by dual-source computed tomography-initial experience. Eur J Radiol. 2006;57:331Y335.
5. Flohr TG, McCollough CH, Bruder H, et al. First performance evaluation of a dual-source CT (DSCT) system. Eur Radiol. 2006;16:256Y268.
6. Funabashi N, Mizuno N, Yoshida K, et al. Superiority of synchrony of 256-slice cone beam computed tomography for acquiring pulsating objects. Comparison with conventional multislice computed tomography. Int J Cardiol. 2007;118:400Y405.
7. Marquering HA, Dijkstra J, de Koning PJ, et al. Towards quantitative analysis of coronary CTA. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2005;21:73Y84.
8. Leber AW, Becker A, Knez A, et al. Accuracy of 64-slice computed tomography to classify and quantify plaque volumes in the proximal coronary system: a comparative study using intravascular ultrasound. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006;47:672Y677.
9. Cury RC, Ferencik M, Achenbach S, et al. Accuracy of 16-slice multi-detector CT to quantify the degree of coronary artery stenosis: assessment of cross-sectional and longitudinal vessel reconstructions. Eur J Radiol. 2006;57:345Y350.
10. Mahnken AH, Wildberger JE, Sinha AM, et al. Value of 3D-volume rendering in the assessment of coronary arteries with retrospectively ECG-gated multislice spiral CT. Acta Radiol. 2003;44:302Y309.
11. Cademartiri F, Runza G, Mollet NR, et al. Impact of intravascular enhancement, heart rate, and calcium score on diagnostic accuracy in multislice computed tomography coronary angiography. Radiol Med. 2005;110:42Y51.
12. Leschka S, Husmann L, Desbiolles LM, et al. Optimal image reconstruction intervals for non-invasive coronary angiography with 64-slice CT. Eur Radiol. 2006;16:1964Y1972.
13. Raff GL, Gallagher MJ, O'Neill WW, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of noninvasive coronary angiography using 64-slice spiral computed tomography. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005;46:552Y557.
14. Cademartiri F, Mollet N, Lemos PA, et al. Standard versus user-interactive assessment of significant coronary stenoses with multislice computed tomography coronary angiography. Am J Cardiol. 2004;94:1590Y1593.
15. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986;1: 307Y310.
16. Dikkers R, Willems TP, Piers LH, et al. Coronary revascularization treatment based on dual-source computed tomography. Eur Radiol. 2008. DOI 10.1007/s00330-008-0959-0.
17. Rodenwaldt J. Multislice computed tomography of the coronary arteries. Eur Radiol. 2003;13:748Y757.
18. Streiner DL, Norman GR. BPrecision[ and Baccuracy[: two terms that are neither. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006;59:327Y330.
19. Neufang KF. Geometry of eccentric vascular stenoses in various projections-significance for angiographic assessment of the degree of stenosis, especially using digital subtraction angiography. Digitale Bilddiagn. 1986;6:187Y191.