Adjusting the upper threshold for fatty attenuation on non-contrast routine chest CT strongly correlated with coronary CT angiography (r=0.976) and reduced volume bias.
Observational (n=83)
No
Does adjusting the threshold of fatty attenuation improve the consistency of epicardial adipose tissue volume and attenuation measured by non-contrast routine chest CT compared to coronary CT angiography?
Adjusting the upper threshold for fatty attenuation on non-contrast routine chest CT improves the consistency of epicardial adipose tissue volume measurements compared to coronary CT angiography.
Effect estimate: r = 0.976
p-value: p=<0.001
BACKGROUND: Epicardial adipose tissue (EAT) is known as an important imaging indicator for cardiovascular risk stratification. The present study aimed to determine whether the EAT volume (EV) and mean EAT attenuation (mEA) measured by non-contrast routine chest CT (RCCT) could be more consistent with those measured by coronary CT angiography (CCTA) by adjusting the threshold of fatty attenuation. METHODS: In total, 83 subjects who simultaneously underwent CCTA and RCCT were enrolled. EV and mEA were quantified by CCTA using a threshold of (N30) (- 190 HU, - 30 HU) as a reference and measured by RCCT using thresholds of N30, N40 (- 190 HU, - 40 HU), and N45 (- 190 HU, - 45 HU). The correlation and agreement of EAT metrics between the two imaging modalities and differences between patients with coronary plaques (plaque ( +)) and without plaques (plaque ( -)) were analyzed. RESULTS: EV obtained from RCCT showed very strong correlation with the reference (r = 0.974, 0.976, 0.972 (N30, N40, N45), P < 0.001), whereas mEA showed a moderate correlation (r = 0.516, 0.500, 0.477 (N30, N40, N45), P < 0.001). Threshold adjustment was able to reduce the bias of EV, while increase the bias of mEA. Data obtained by CCTA and RCCT both demonstrated a significantly larger EV in the plaque ( +) group than in the plaque ( -) group (P < 0.05). A significant difference in mEA was shown only by RCCT using a threshold of N30 (plaque ( +) vs ( -): - 80.0 ± 4.4 HU vs - 78.0 ± 4.0 HU, P = 0.030). The mEA measured on RCCT using threshold of N40 and N45 showed no significant statistical difference between the two groups (P = 0.092 and 0.075), which was consistent with the result obtained on CCTA (P = 0.204). CONCLUSION: Applying more negative threshold, the consistency of EV measurements between the two techniques improves and a consistent result can be obtained when comparing EF measurements between groups, although the bias of mEA increases. Threshold adjustment is necessary when measuring EF with non-contrast RCCT.
Yin et al. (Sat,) conducted a observational in Coronary artery disease screening (n=83). Non-contrast routine chest CT (RCCT) with adjusted thresholds (N40, N45) vs. Coronary CT angiography (CCTA) with standard threshold (N30) was evaluated on Correlation of epicardial adipose tissue volume (EV) between RCCT (N40 threshold) and CCTA (r = 0.976, p=<0.001). Adjusting the upper threshold for fatty attenuation on non-contrast routine chest CT strongly correlated with coronary CT angiography (r=0.976) and reduced volume bias.