Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Title:||Impact of Image Reconstruction Parameters on Abdominal Aortic Calcification Measurement Using Abdominal Computed Tomography.||Austin Authors:||Abdelganne, Layal;Song, Fiona;Oliver, Joseph;Galea, Michael ;Chen, Xiao ;McGill, Jeannette;Spelman, Tim;Lim, Ruth P ;Kutaiba, Numan||Affiliation:||Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden
Burnet Institute The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
|Issue Date:||2021||metadata.dc.date:||2021||Publication information:||Journal of computer assisted tomography 2021 Nov-Dec 01; 45(6): 849-855||Abstract:||Abdominal aortic calcification (AAC) is correlated with cardiovascular outcomes independent of traditional risk factors. Quantification of AAC on computed tomography (CT) has not been standardized. Reconstruction parameters have been shown to impact coronary calcium scores. The aim of our study was to assess the impact of abdominal CT reconstruction parameters, slice thickness (ST), and display field of view (DFOV) on AAC quantitative scoring on abdominal CT examinations. We retrospectively measured AAC on noncontrast CT of 46 patients (mean age, 64.1 years; 35 males) using 5 different reconstruction protocols with a range of ST and DFOV: protocol A, 2.5 mm ST, 35 cm DFOV; protocol B, 2.5 mm ST, 50 cm DFOV; protocol C, 2.5 mm ST, 25 cm DFOV; protocol D, 5 mm ST, 35 cm DFOV; and protocol E: 0.625 mm ST, 35 cm DFOV. The AAC scores from each protocol were compared using concordance correlation coefficient and Bland-Altman agreement analyses. The AAC mean (SD) scores for each protocol were as follows: A, 2022 (2418); B, 2022 (2412); C, 1939 (2310); D, 2220 (2695); and E, 1862 (2234). The AAC mean score differences between protocols and reference protocol A were -0.47, 82.01, -198.94, and 160 for protocols B, C, D, and E, respectively, with differences between protocols C to E statistically significantly different (P < 0.05). The different protocols showed overall excellent correlation (concordance correlation coefficient, >0.9) between AAC scores. Slice thickness and DFOV can impact AAC score measurement. A description of reconstruction parameters is important to allow comparisons across different cohorts.||URI:||https://ahro.austin.org.au/austinjspui/handle/1/27635||DOI:||10.1097/RCT.0000000000001226||Journal:||Journal of Computer Assisted Tomography||PubMed URL:||34581705||Type:||Journal Article|
|Appears in Collections:||Journal articles|
Show full item record
checked on Jun 9, 2023
Items in AHRO are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.