4.7 Article

Characterization of coronary atherosclerosis by dual-source computed tomography and HU-based color mapping: a pilot study

Journal

EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY
Volume 18, Issue 11, Pages 2466-2474

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00330-008-1019-5

Keywords

Dual-source computed tomography; HU-based plaque characterization; IVUS virtual histology

Funding

  1. NHLBI NIH HHS [P50 HL083813, P50 HL083813-05] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

To assess HU-based color mapping for characterization of coronary plaque, using intravascular ultrasound virtual histology (IVUS-VH) as a standard of reference. Dual-source computed tomography and IVUS-VH were prospectively performed in 13 patients. In five lesions, HU thresholds of the color-coding software were calibrated to IVUS-VH. In a 15-lesion verification cohort, volumes of vessel, lumen and plaque or percentages of lipid, fibrous and calcified components were obtained through use of pre-set HU cut-offs as well as through purely visual adjustment of color maps. Calibrated HU ranges for fatty or fibrous plaque, lumen and calcification were -10-69, 70-158, 159-436 and 437+. Using these cut-offs, HU-based analysis achieved good agreement of plaque volume with IVUS (47.0 vs. 51.0 mm(3)). Visual segmentation led to significant overestimation of atheroma (61.6 vs. 51.0 mm(3); P=0.04) Correlation coefficients for volumes of vessel, lumen and plaque were 0.92, 0.87 and 0.83 with HU-based analysis or 0.92, 0.85 and 0.71 with visual evaluation. With both methods, correlation of percentage plaque composition was poor or insignificant. HU-based plaque analysis showed good reproducibility with intra-class correlation coefficients being 0.90 for plaque volume and 0.81, 0.94 or 0.98 for percentages of fatty, fibrous or calcified components. With use of optimized HU thresholds, color mapping allows for accurate and reproducible quantification of coronary plaque.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available