Key result
Different-vendor CCTA scanners increase plaque volume measurement variability by ~12 percentage points versus same-vendor follow-up.
Observational (n=40)
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Purpose To determine reader and computed tomography (CT) scan variability for measurement of coronary plaque volume. Materials and Methods This HIPAA-compliant study followed Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy guidelines. Baseline coronary CT angiography was performed in 40 prospectively enrolled subjects (mean age, 67 years ± 6 [standard deviation]) with asymptomatic hyperlipidemia by using a 320–detector row scanner (Aquilion One Vision; Toshiba, Otawara, Japan). Twenty of these subjects underwent coronary CT angiography repeated on a separate day with the same CT scanner (Toshiba, group 1); 20 subjects underwent repeat CT performed with a different CT scanner (Somatom Force; Siemens, Forchheim, Germany [group 2]). Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and Bland-Altman analysis were used to assess interreader, intrareader, and interstudy reproducibility. Results Baseline and repeat coronary CT angiography scans were acquired within 19 days ± 6. Interreader and intrareader agreement rates were high for total, calcified, and noncalcified plaques for both CT scanners (all ICCs ≥ 0.96) without bias. Scanner variability was ±18.4% (coefficient of variation) with same-vendor follow-up. However, scanner variability increased to ±29.9% with different-vendor follow-up. The sample size to detect a 5% change in noncalcified plaque volume with 90% power and an α error of .05 was 286 subjects for same–CT scanner follow-up and 753 subjects with different-vendor follow-up. Conclusion State-of-the-art coronary CT angiography with same-vendor follow-up has good scan-rescan reproducibility, suggesting a role of coronary CT angiography in monitoring coronary artery plaque response to therapy. Differences between coronary CT angiography vendors resulted in lower scan-rescan reproducibility.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Symons et al. (2016) conducted an observational in asymptomatic hyperlipidemia (n=40). Different-vendor coronary CT angiography scanner vs. Same-vendor coronary CT angiography scanner was evaluated on Scanner variability (coefficient of variation) for measurement of coronary plaque volume. Coronary CT angiography scanner variability for plaque volume measurement was ±18.4% with same-vendor follow-up, increasing to ±29.9% when using a different-vendor scanner.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: