论文部分内容阅读
AIM: To evaluate the feasibility of coronary artery calcium score(CACS) on low-dose non-gated chest CT(ngCCT).METHODS: Sixty consecutive individuals(30 males; 73 ± 7 years) scheduled for risk stratification by means of unenhanced ECG-triggered cardiac computed to-mography(gCCT) underwent additional unenhanced ngCCT. All CT scans were performed on a 64-slice CT scanner(Somatom Sensation 64 Cardiac, Siemens, Germany). CACS was calculated using conventional methods/scores(Volume, Mass, Agatston) as previ-ously described in literature. The CACS value obtained were compared. The Mayo Clinic classification was used to stratify cardiovascular risk based on Agatston CACS. Differences and correlations between the two methods were compared. A P-value < 0.05 was considered sig-nificant.RESULTS: Mean CACS values were significantly higher for gCCT as compared to ngCCT(Volume: 418 ± 747 vs 332 ± 597; Mass: 89 ± 151 vs 78 ± 141; Agatston: 481 ± 854 vs 428 ± 776; P < 0.05). The correlation between the two values was always very high(Volume: r = 0.95; Mass: r = 0.97; Agatston: r = 0.98). Of the 6 patients with 0 Agatston score on gCCT, 2(33%) showed an Agatston score > 0 in the ngCCT. Of the 3 patients with 1-10 Agatston score on gCCT, 1(33%) showed an Agatston score of 0 in the ngCCT. Overall, 23(38%) patients were reclassified in a different car-diovascular risk category, mostly(18/23; 78%) shifting to a lower risk in the ngCCT. The estimated radiation dose was significantly higher for gCCT(DLP 115.8 ± 50.7 vs 83.8 ± 16.3; Effective dose 1.6 ± 0.7 mSv vs 1.2 ± 0.2 mSv; P < 0.01).CONCLUSION: CACS assessment is feasible on ngCCT; the variability of CACS values and the associated re-stratification of patients in cardiovascular risk groups should be taken into account.
AIM: To evaluate the feasibility of coronary artery calcium score (CACS) on low-dose non-gated chest CT (ngCCT). METHODS: Sixty consecutive individuals (30 males; 73 ± 7 years) scheduled for risk stratification by means of unenhanced ECG All CT scans were performed on a 64-slice CT scanner (Somatom Sensation 64 Cardiac, Siemens, Germany). CACS was calculated using conventional methods / scores (Volume, Mass The CACS value obtained were compared. The Mayo Clinic classification was used to stratify cardiovascular risk based on Agatston CACS. Differences and correlations between the two methods were compared. A P-value <0.05 was The results were expressed as follows: sigma nificant.RESULTS: Mean CACS values were significantly higher for gCCT as compared to ngCCT (Volume: 418 ± 747 vs 332 ± 597; Mass: 89 ± 151 vs 78 ± 141; Agatston: 481 ± 854 vs 428 ± 776; P <0.05). The correlation betw een the two values was always very high (Volume: r = 0.95; Mass: r = 0.97; Agatston: r = 0.98). Of the 6 patients with 0 Agatston score on gCCT, 2 (33%) showed an Agatston score> of the 3 patients with 1-10 Agatston score on gCCT, 1 (33%) showed an Agatston score of 0 in the ngCCT. Overall, 23 (38%) patients were reclassified in a different car- diovascular risk category , most (18/23; 78%) shifted to a lower risk in the ngCCT. The estimated radiation dose was significantly higher for gCCT (DLP 115.8 ± 50.7 vs 83.8 ± 16.3; Effective dose 1.6 ± 0.7 mSv vs. 1.2 ± 0.2 mSv; P <0.01). CONCLUSION: CACS assessment is feasible on ngCCT; the variability of CACS values and the associated re-stratification of patients in cardiovascular risk groups should be taken into account.