Key result
Non-contrast cardiac CT shows no difference in epicardial fat volume compared to coronary CTA.
Why the study?
Does a semi-automatic computerized method provide reproducible quantitative analysis of epicardial fat volume using non-contrast cardiac CT and coronary CT angiography in patients with suspected CAD?
Observational
No
Does a semi-automatic computerized method provide reproducible quantitative analysis of epicardial fat volume using non-contrast cardiac CT and coronary CT angiography in patients with suspected CAD?
Absolute Event Rate: 103.62% vs 94.96%
p-value: p=0.292
Both non-contrast cardiac CT and coronary CTA can provide fast, reliable, and highly reproducible computer-assisted measurements of epicardial fat volume.
Computer-assisted EFV quantification demonstrates high reproducibility on NCT and CTA; leaves open its prognostic utility in larger prospective cohorts.
BACKGROUND: Several studies have focused on the role of epicardial fat in the pathogenesis of cardiovascular disease (CVD). The main purpose of the study was to evaluate a computerized method for the quantitative analysis of epicardial fat volume (EFV) by non-contrast cardiac CT (NCT) for coronary calcium scan and coronary CT angiography (coronary CTA). METHODS: ) referred to our Institution for suspected coronary artery disease (CAD) underwent NCT and coronary CTA. Epicardial boundaries were traced by 2 experienced operators (operator 1, operators 2) on 3 and 6 short-axis (SA) slices. EFV was computed with a semi-automatic method using an in-house developed software based on spherical harmonic representation of the epicardial surface. In order to analyze the inter-observer variability both the Coefficient of Repeatability (CR) and Intra Class Correlation (ICC) were computed. RESULTS: The total EFV was 103.62±50.97 and 94.96±67.91 cc in NCT and coronary CTA with non-significant difference (P=0.292). CR error was 10.22 cc for operator 1 and 11.31 cc for operator 2 in NCT and 7.99 cc for operator 1 and 7.75 cc for operator 2 in coronary CTA. To analyze the inter-observer variability CR and ICC were computed. CR was 8.17 and 8.39 cc with NCT and 7.07 and 7.21 cc with CTA for 6 and 3 SA slices respectively. ICC values >0.99 were obtained in all cases. The right ventricular EFV was 67.23±31.4 and 57.41±34.3 cc for NCT and coronary CTA respectively; the corresponding values for left ventricular EFV were 38.01±19.1 and 35.27±25.9 cc. CONCLUSIONS: Both NCT and coronary CTA can be used with low intra- and inter-observer variability for computer-assisted measurements of EFV. Cardiac CT may allow a fast and reliable computation of EFV in clinical setting.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
D’Errico et al. (2017) conducted an observational in Suspected coronary artery disease. Non-contrast cardiac CT (NCT) vs. Coronary CT angiography (CTA) was evaluated on Total epicardial fat volume (EFV) (p=0.292). Non-contrast cardiac CT yielded a total epicardial fat volume of 103.62±50.97 cc, which was not significantly different from the 94.96±67.91 cc measured by coronary CT angiography (P=0.292).
Synapse has enriched 3 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: