Advertisement

Accurate quantification of vessel cross-sectional area using CT angiography: a simulation study

  • Sabee Molloi
  • Travis Johnson
  • Huanjun Ding
  • Jerry Lipinski
Original Paper

Abstract

Coronary computed tomography (CT) angiography is a noninvasive method for visualizing coronary atherosclerosis. However, CT angiography is limited in assessment of stenosis severity by the partial volume effect and calcification. Therefore, a quantitative method for assessment of stenosis severity is needed. Polyenergetic fan beam CT simulations were performed to match the geometry of a 320-slice CT scanner. Contrast-enhanced vessel lumens were modeled as 8 mg/ml Iodine solution against a lipid background. Normal vessels were simulated by circles with diameters in the range of 0.1–3 mm. To simulate lesions, 2, 3, and 4 mm diameter vessels were simulated with area stenoses in a range of 10–90 %. The occlusion was created by a circular region of lipid placed within the lumen resulting in a crescent shaped lumen. Each vessel was simulated three times to obtain multiple noise realizations for a total of 126 vessels. Two trained readers performed manual cross-sectional area measurements in simulated normal and stenotic vessels. A new, semi-automated technique based on integrated Hounsfield units was also used to calculate vessel cross-sectional area. There was an excellent correlation between the measured and the known cross-sectional area for both normal and stenotic vessels using the manual and the semi-automated techniques. However, the overall measurement error for the manual method was more than twice as compared with the integrated HU technique. Determination of vessel cross-sectional area using the semi-automated integrated Hounsfield unit technique yields more than a factor of two improvement in accuracy as compared to the existing manual technique for vessels with and without stenosis. This technique can also be used to correct for the effect of coronary calcification.

Keywords

Angiography Coronary disease Imaging Tomography 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Ms. Rachel Smith for her help with data analysis. This work was supported in part by a grant from Toshiba America Medical System Inc.

Conflict of interest

S. Molloi has recieved grant funding from Toshiba America Medical System Inc.

References

  1. 1.
    Achenbach S, Daniel WG (2001) Noninvasive coronary angiography—an acceptable alternative? N Engl J Med 345:1909–1910CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Budoff MJ, Dowe D, Jollis JG, Gitter M, Sutherland J, Halamert E, Scherer M, Bellinger R, Martin A, Benton R, Delago A, Min JK (2008) Diagnostic performance of 64-multidetector row coronary computed tomographic angiography for evaluation of coronary artery stenosis in individuals without known coronary artery disease: results from the prospective multicenter accuracy (assessment by coronary computed tomographic angiography of individuals undergoing invasive coronary angiography) trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 52:1724–1732CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Min JK, Shaw LJ, Berman DS (2010) The present state of coronary computed tomography angiography a process in evolution. J Am Coll Cardiol 55:957–965CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Schuhbaeck A, Achenbach S, Layritz C, Eisentopf J, Hecker F, Pflederer T, Gauss S, Rixe J, Kalender W, Daniel WG, Lell M, Ropers D (2013) Image quality of ultra-low radiation exposure coronary ct angiography with an effective dose < 0.1 msv using high-pitch spiral acquisition and raw data-based iterative reconstruction. Eur Radiol 23:597–606CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Goldstein JA, Gallagher MJ, O’Neill WW, Ross MA, O’Neil BJ, Raff GL (2007) A randomized controlled trial of multi-slice coronary computed tomography for evaluation of acute chest pain. J Am Coll Cardiol 49:863–871CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Meijboom WB, Van Mieghem CA, van Pelt N, Weustink A, Pugliese F, Mollet NR, Boersma E, Regar E, van Geuns RJ, de Jaegere PJ, Serruys PW, Krestin GP, de Feyter PJ (2008) Comprehensive assessment of coronary artery stenoses: computed tomography coronary angiography versus conventional coronary angiography and correlation with fractional flow reserve in patients with stable angina. J Am Coll Cardiol 52:636–643CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Nissen SE (2008) Limitations of computed tomography coronary angiography. J Am Coll Cardiol 52:2145–2147CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Marwan M, Pflederer T, Schepis T, Seltmann M, Ropers D, Daniel WG, Achenbach S (2011) Coronary vessel and luminal area measurement using dual-source computed tomography in comparison with intravascular ultrasound: effect of window settings on measurement accuracy. J Comput Assist Tomogr 35:113–118CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Komatsu S, Kamata T, Imai A, Ohara T, Miyaji K, Kobayashi Y, Kodama K (2014) Quantitative analysis of coronary vessels with optimized intracoronary ct number. Plos One 9:e85312CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jiayin Z, Weimin H, Yanling C, Yuping D, Liang Z, Xiaodan Z, Junmei Z, Wei X, Ru San T, Kyaw Kyar T (2015) Quantification of coronary artery stenosis by area stenosis from cardiac ct angiography. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc 2015:695–698Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kruk M, Noll D, Achenbach S, Mintz GS, Pregowski J, Kaczmarska E, Kryczka K, Pracon R, Dzielinska Z, Sleszycka J, Witkowski A, Demkow M, Ruzyllo W, Kepka C (2014) Impact of coronary artery calcium characteristics on accuracy of ct angiography. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 7:49–58CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fuchs A, Kuhl JT, Chen MY, Helqvist S, Razeto M, Arakita K, Steveson C, Arai AE, Kofoed KF (2015) Feasibility of coronary calcium and stent image subtraction using 320-detector row ct angiography. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr 9:393–398CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Boone JM, Fewell TR, Jennings RJ (1997) Molybdenum, rhodium, and tungsten anode spectral models using interpolating polynomials with application to mammography. Med Phys 24:1863–1874CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Boone JM, Seibert JA (1997) Accurate method for computer-generating tungsten anode X-ray spectra from 30 to 140 kv. Med Phys 24:1661–1670CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Boone JM, Chavez AE (1996) Comparison of X-ray cross sections for diagnostic and therapeutic medical physics. Med Phys 23:1997–2005CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Long Y, Fessler JA, Balter JM (2010) 3D forward and back-projection for X-ray ct using separable footprints. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 29:1839–1850CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rasband WS (1997) 2005, Imagej. US National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MarylandGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Leber AW, Knez A, von Ziegler F, Becker A, Nikolaou K, Paul S, Wintersperger B, Reiser M, Becker CR, Steinbeck G, Boekstegers P (2005) Quantification of obstructive and nonobstructive coronary lesions by 64-slice computed tomography: a comparative study with quantitative coronary angiography and intravascular ultrasound. J Am Coll Cardiol 46:147–154CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kim HJ, Vignon-Clementel IE, Coogan JS, Figueroa CA, Jansen KE, Taylor CA (2010) Patient-specific modeling of blood flow and pressure in human coronary arteries. Ann Biomed Eng 38:3195–3209CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Koo BK, Erglis A, Doh JH, Daniels DV, Jegere S, Kim HS, Dunning A, DeFrance T, Lansky A, Leipsic J, Min JK (2011) Diagnosis of ischemia-causing coronary stenoses by noninvasive fractional flow reserve computed from coronary computed tomographic angiograms. Results from the prospective multicenter discover-flow (diagnosis of ischemia-causing stenoses obtained via noninvasive fractional flow reserve) study. J Am Coll Cardiol 58:1989–1997CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Min JK, Leipsic J, Pencina MJ, Berman DS, Koo BK, van Mieghem C, Erglis A, Lin FY, Dunning AM, Apruzzese P, Budoff MJ, Cole JH, Jaffer FA, Leon MB, Malpeso J, Mancini GB, Park SJ, Schwartz RS, Shaw LJ, Mauri L (2012) Diagnostic accuracy of fractional flow reserve from anatomic ct angiography. JAMA 308:1237–1245CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Huo Y, Svendsen M, Choy JS, Zhang ZD, Kassab GS (2012) A validated predictive model of coronary fractional flow reserve. J R Soc Interface 9:1325–1338CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sabee Molloi
    • 1
  • Travis Johnson
    • 1
  • Huanjun Ding
    • 1
  • Jerry Lipinski
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Radiological Sciences, Medical Sciences B, 140University of CaliforniaIrvineUSA

Personalised recommendations