4.7 Review

Accuracy of 64-slice computed tomography to classify and quantify plaque volumes in the proximal coronary system - A comparative study using intravascular ultrasound

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2005.10.058

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVES We evaluated the accuracy of a new 64-slice computed tomography (CT) scanner, compared with intravascular ultrasound, to visualize atherosclerosis in the proximal coronary system. ACKGROUND Noninvasive determination of plaque composition and plaque burden may be important to improve risk stratification. METHODS In 20 patients, a 64-slice CT scan (Sensation 64, Siemens Medical Solutions, Forchheim, Germany) and an intravascular ultrasound investigation of vessels without stenosis >50% was performed. Diagnostic image quality with 64-slice CT was obtained in 36 vessels in 19 patients. RESULTS In these vessels, which were divided in 3-mm sections, 64-slice CT enabled a correct detection of plaque in 54 of 65 (83%) sections containing noncalcified plaques, 50 of 53 (94%) sections containing mixed plaques, and 41 of 43 (95%) sections containing calcified plaques. In 192 of 204 (94%) sections, atherosclerotic lesions were excluded correctly. In addition, 64-slice CT enabled the visualization of 7 of 10 (70%) sections revealing a lipid pool and could identify a spotty calcification pattern in 27 of 30 (90%) sections. The correlation coefficient to determine plaque volumes per vessel was r(2) = 0.69 (p < 0.001) with an underestimation of mixed and noncalcified plaque volumes (p < 0.03) and a trend to overestimate calcified plaque volumes by 64-slice CT. The interobserver variability to determine plaque volumes was 37%. Interobserver agreement to identify atherosclerotic sections was good (Cohen's kappa coefficient = 0.75). CONCLUSIONS We conclude that 64-slice CT reveals encouraging results to noninvasively detect different types of coronary plaques located in the proximal coronary system. The ability to determine plaque burden currently is hampered by mainly an insufficient reproducibility.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据