Coronary artery calcium scoring assessment in ultra-low-dose chest computed tomography

To investigate the effect of non-electrocardiogram (ECG) -triggered ultra-low-dose CT (ULD-CT) with different reconstruction protocols on coronary artery calcium (CAC) scoring assessment, compared with ECG-triggered CAC CT (CAC-CT).

This prospective study included 115 patients who underwent CAC-CT and ULD-CT scans under the same topogram images. CAC-CT adopted a prospective ECG-triggered sequential acquisition with a tube potential of 120 kV, and the reconstruction protocol was standard Qr36 + slice 3 mm (CAC_Qr-3mm group). ULD-CT adopted a non-ECG-triggered high-pitch acquisition with a tube potential of Sn100 kV, and four groups of images (named ULD_Qr-3mm, ULD_Sa-3mm, ULD_Qr-1.5mm, and ULD_Sa-1.5mm) were reconstructed using different reconstruction algorithms (standard Qr36, kV-independent Sa36) and slice thicknesses (3 mm, 1.5 mm). The accuracy of CAC detection by ULD-CT was calculated. The agreement of the CAC score between ULD-CT and CAC-CT scans was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and Bland-Altman plot, and the agreement of risk categorization was assessed using weighted kappa.

The sensitivity and specificity of the ULD_Sa-1.5mm group for detecting positive CAC were 100% and 97.4%, respectively (k = 0.980). The CAC score for the ULD_Sa-3mm and ULD_Sa-1.5mm groups demonstrated excellent agreement with the CAC_Qr-3mm group (ICC = 0.992, 0.990, respectively), with a mean difference of -12.3 and - 12.4. The agreement of risk categorization based on absolute and percentile CAC score between the ULD_Sa-1.5mm and CAC_Qr-3mm groups was excellent (weighted k = 0.954, 0.983, respectively), and risk reclassification rates were low (3.5%, 2.8%, respectively). The effective dose was reduced by approximately 77.2% for the ULD-CT compared to the CAC-CT (0.18 mSv vs. 0.79 mSv, p < 0.001).

Reconstruction with a 1.5-mm slice thickness and kV-independent iterative algorithmic protocol in ULD-CT yielded excellent agreement in CAC score quantification and risk categorization compared with ECG-triggered CAC-CT.