背景:我们当前的系统动态体模研究的目的首先是,优化光子计数CT(PCCT)获取的冠状动脉CTA(CCTA)重建参数,第二,为了评估从CCTA计算CAC分数的可行性,与参考钙评分CT(CSCT)扫描相比。
方法:在这项幻影研究中,人工冠状动脉在拟人化体模内以每分钟0次、<60次和每分钟60-75次(bpm)的速度平移。钙化的密度是100(非常低),200(低),400(中),和800(高)mgHA/cm3。使用以下参数重建CCTA:虚拟非碘(VNI),有和没有迭代重建(QIR级别2,QIR关闭,分别);内核Qr36和Qr44f;切片厚度/增量3.0/1.5毫米和0.4/0.2毫米。CACCCTA和CACCSCT评分在风险组分类上的一致性使用Cohen加权线性κ和95%CI进行测量。
结果:对于用0.4mm切片厚度重建的CCTA,钙检测是完美的(100%)。在<60bpm时,CACCCTA低,中等密度钙化被低估了53%,15%,分别。然而,CACCCTA与非常低的CACCSCT没有显著差异,和高密度钙化.在关闭QIR的情况下重建CCTA时,达成了最佳风险协议,Qr44f,切片厚度为0.4mm(κ=0.762,95%CI0.671-0.853)。
结论:在这项动态体模研究中,CCTA在PCCT上使用薄层VNI重建技术检测不同密度的钙化非常好.与CSCT相比,Agatston得分被低估了,但在风险分类方面达成了实质性共识。
结论:光子计数CT可以在日常临床实践中从冠状动脉CTA进行冠状动脉钙积分。
结论:光子计数CTA可以在所有心率下对低密度钙化进行出色的检测。在光子计数CT上获得的冠状动脉CTA的冠状动脉钙评分是可行的,虽然需要改进。为了改善冠状动脉钙的定量,需要采用标准的钙评分采集和重建方案,以充分利用光子计数CT的潜力。
BACKGROUND: The aim of our current systematic dynamic phantom
study was first, to optimize reconstruction parameters of coronary CTA (CCTA) acquired on photon counting CT (PCCT) for coronary artery calcium (CAC) scoring, and second, to assess the feasibility of calculating CAC scores from CCTA, in comparison to reference calcium scoring CT (CSCT) scans.
METHODS: In this phantom
study, an artificial coronary artery was translated at velocities corresponding to 0, < 60, and 60-75 beats per minute (bpm) within an anthropomorphic phantom. The density of calcifications was 100 (very low), 200 (low), 400 (medium), and 800 (high) mgHA/cm3, respectively. CCTA was reconstructed with the following parameters: virtual non-iodine (VNI), with and without iterative reconstruction (QIR level 2, QIR off, respectively); kernels Qr36 and Qr44f; slice thickness/increment 3.0/1.5 mm and 0.4/0.2 mm. The agreement in risk group classification between CACCCTA and CACCSCT scoring was measured using Cohen weighted linear κ with 95% CI.
RESULTS: For CCTA reconstructed with 0.4 mm slice thickness, calcium detectability was perfect (100%). At < 60 bpm, CACCCTA of low, and medium density calcification was underestimated by 53%, and 15%, respectively. However, CACCCTA was not significantly different from CACCSCT of very low, and high-density calcifications. The best risk agreement was achieved when CCTA was reconstructed with QIR off, Qr44f, and 0.4 mm slice thickness (κ = 0.762, 95% CI 0.671-0.853).
CONCLUSIONS: In this dynamic phantom
study, the detection of calcifications with different densities was excellent with CCTA on PCCT using thin-slice VNI reconstruction. Agatston scores were underestimated compared to CSCT but agreement in risk classification was substantial.
CONCLUSIONS: Photon counting CT may enable the implementation of coronary artery calcium scoring from coronary CTA in daily clinical practice.
CONCLUSIONS: Photon-counting CTA allows for excellent detectability of low-density calcifications at all heart rates. Coronary artery calcium scoring from coronary CTA acquired on photon counting CT is feasible, although improvement is needed. Adoption of the standard acquisition and reconstruction protocol for calcium scoring is needed for improved quantification of coronary artery calcium to fully employ the potential of photon counting CT.