Observer Variability in the Assessment of CT Coronary Angiography and Coronary Artery Calcium Score: Substudy of the Scottish COmputed Tomography of the HEART (SCOT-HEART) Trial

Overview

Journal Open Heart

Publisher BMJ Publishing Group

Specialty Cardiology & Vascular Diseases

Date 2015 May 29

PMID 26019881

Citations 21

Authors

Michelle C Williams

Saroj K Golay

Amanda Hunter

Jonathan R Weir-McCall

Lucja Mlynska

Marc R Dweck

Neal G Uren

John H Reid

Steff C Lewis

Colin Berry

Edwin J R van Beek

Giles Roditi

David E Newby

Saeed Mirsadraee

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Introduction: Observer variability can influence the assessment of CT coronary angiography (CTCA) and the subsequent diagnosis of angina pectoris due to coronary heart disease.

Methods: We assessed 210 CTCAs from the Scottish COmputed Tomography of the HEART (SCOT-HEART) trial for intraobserver and interobserver variability. Calcium score, coronary angiography and image quality were evaluated. Coronary artery disease was defined as none (<10%), mild (10-49%), moderate (50-70%) and severe (>70%) luminal stenosis and classified as no (<10%), non-obstructive (10-70%) or obstructive (>70%) coronary artery disease. Post-CTCA diagnosis of angina pectoris due to coronary heart disease was classified as yes, probable, unlikely or no.

Results: Patients had a mean body mass index of 29 (28, 30) kg/m(2), heart rate of 58 (57, 60)/min and 62% were men. Intraobserver and interobserver agreements for the presence or absence of coronary artery disease were excellent (95% agreement, κ 0.884 (0.817 to 0.951) and good (91%, 0.791 (0.703 to 0.879)). Intraobserver and interobserver agreement for the presence or absence of angina pectoris due to coronary heart disease were excellent (93%, 0.842 (0.918 to 0.755) and good (86%, 0.701 (0.799 to 0.603)), respectively. Observer variability of calcium score was excellent for calcium scores below 1000. More segments were categorised as uninterpretable with 64-multidetector compared to 320-multidetector CTCA (10.1% vs 2.6%, p<0.001) but there was no difference in observer variability.

Conclusions: Multicentre multidetector CTCA has excellent agreement in patients under investigation for suspected angina due to coronary heart disease.

Trial Registration Number: NCT01149590.

Citing Articles

Fully automated coronary artery calcium score and risk categorization from chest CT using deep learning and multiorgan segmentation: A validation study from National Lung Screening Trial (NLST).

Rathore S, Gautam A, Raghav P, Subramaniam V, Gupta V, Rathore M Int J Cardiol Heart Vasc. 2025; 56():101593.

PMID: 39850777 PMC: 11754490. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijcha.2024.101593.

Patient-Specific Myocardial Infarction Risk Thresholds From AI-Enabled Coronary Plaque Analysis.

Miller R, Manral N, Lin A, Shanbhag A, Park C, Kwiecinski J Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2024; 17(10):e016958.

PMID: 39405390 PMC: 11834154. DOI: 10.1161/CIRCIMAGING.124.016958.

Coronary Artery Stenosis and High-Risk Plaque Assessed With an Unsupervised Fully Automated Deep Learning Technique.

Ihdayhid A, Sehly A, He A, Joyner J, Flack J, Konstantopoulos J JACC Adv. 2024; 3(9):100861.

PMID: 39372456 PMC: 11450949. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacadv.2024.100861.

Artificial Intelligence-based Coronary Stenosis Quantification at Coronary CT Angiography versus Quantitative Coronary Angiography.

Dundas J, Leipsic J, Sellers S, Blanke P, Miranda P, Ng N Radiol Cardiothorac Imaging. 2024; 5(6):e230124.

PMID: 38166336 PMC: 11163244. DOI: 10.1148/ryct.230124.

Inter- and intra-observer reproducibility of CT-Leaman score by an independent core lab.

Revaiah P, Kageyama S, Masuda S, Ninomiya K, Kotoku N, Wang B Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2023; 39(11):2269-2277.

PMID: 37875690 DOI: 10.1007/s10554-023-02962-3.

References

Sedaghat F, Pouraliakbar H, Motevalli M, Karimi M, Armand S . Comparison of diagnostic accuracy of dual-source CT and conventional angiography in detecting congenital heart diseases. Pol J Radiol. 2014; 79:164-8. PMC: 4076227. DOI: 10.12659/PJR.890732. View

Agatston A, Janowitz W, HILDNER F, Zusmer N, VIAMONTE Jr M, Detrano R . Quantification of coronary artery calcium using ultrafast computed tomography. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1990; 15(4):827-32. DOI: 10.1016/0735-1097(90)90282-t. View

Newby D, Williams M, Flapan A, Forbes J, Hargreaves A, Leslie S . Role of multidetector computed tomography in the diagnosis and management of patients attending the rapid access chest pain clinic, The Scottish computed tomography of the heart (SCOT-HEART) trial: study protocol for randomized controlled trial. Trials. 2012; 13:184. PMC: 3667058. DOI: 10.1186/1745-6215-13-184. View

DeFrance T, Dubois E, Gebow D, Ramirez A, Wolf F, Feuchtner G . Helical prospective ECG-gating in cardiac computed tomography: radiation dose and image quality. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2009; 26(1):99-107. DOI: 10.1007/s10554-009-9522-6. View

Horiguchi J, Matsuura N, Yamamoto H, Kiguchi M, Fujioka C, Kitagawa T . Coronary artery calcium scoring on low-dose prospective electrocardiographically-triggered 64-slice CT. Acad Radiol. 2009; 16(2):187-93. DOI: 10.1016/j.acra.2008.05.017. View

Pelliccia F, Pasceri V, Evangelista A, Pergolini A, Barilla F, Viceconte N . Diagnostic accuracy of 320-row computed tomography as compared with invasive coronary angiography in unselected, consecutive patients with suspected coronary artery disease. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2012; 29(2):443-52. DOI: 10.1007/s10554-012-0095-4. View

Nicol E, Stirrup J, Roughton M, Padley S, Rubens M . 64-Channel cardiac computed tomography: intraobserver and interobserver variability (part 1): coronary angiography. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2009; 33(2):161-8. DOI: 10.1097/RCT.0b013e31817c423e. View

Miller J, Rochitte C, Dewey M, Arbab-Zadeh A, Niinuma H, Gottlieb I . Diagnostic performance of coronary angiography by 64-row CT. N Engl J Med. 2008; 359(22):2324-36. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa0806576. View

Stolzmann P, Scheffel H, Leschka S, Plass A, Baumuller S, Marincek B . Influence of calcifications on diagnostic accuracy of coronary CT angiography using prospective ECG triggering. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008; 191(6):1684-9. DOI: 10.2214/AJR.07.4040. View

10.

Schuhback A, Marwan M, Gauss S, Muschiol G, Ropers D, Schneider C . Interobserver agreement for the detection of atherosclerotic plaque in coronary CT angiography: comparison of two low-dose image acquisition protocols with standard retrospectively ECG-gated reconstruction. Eur Radiol. 2012; 22(7):1529-36. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-012-2389-2. View

11.

Meijboom W, Meijs M, Schuijf J, Cramer M, Mollet N, van Mieghem C . Diagnostic accuracy of 64-slice computed tomography coronary angiography: a prospective, multicenter, multivendor study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008; 52(25):2135-44. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2008.08.058. View

12.

Ghadri J, Goetti R, Fiechter M, Pazhenkottil A, Kuest S, Nkoulou R . Inter-scan variability of coronary artery calcium scoring assessed on 64-multidetector computed tomography vs. dual-source computed tomography: a head-to-head comparison. Eur Heart J. 2011; 32(15):1865-74. DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehr157. View

13.

Willemink M, Vliegenthart R, Takx R, Leiner T, Budde R, Bleys R . Coronary artery calcification scoring with state-of-the-art CT scanners from different vendors has substantial effect on risk classification. Radiology. 2014; 273(3):695-702. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.14140066. View

14.

Ovrehus K, Marwan M, Botker H, Achenbach S, Norgaard B . Reproducibility of coronary plaque detection and characterization using low radiation dose coronary computed tomographic angiography in patients with intermediate likelihood of coronary artery disease (ReSCAN study). Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2011; 28(4):889-99. DOI: 10.1007/s10554-011-9895-1. View

15.

Khan A, Khosa F, Nasir K, Yassin A, Clouse M . Comparison of radiation dose and image quality: 320-MDCT versus 64-MDCT coronary angiography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011; 197(1):163-8. PMC: 3294285. DOI: 10.2214/AJR.10.5250. View

16.

Ferencik M, Nieman K, Achenbach S . Noncalcified and calcified coronary plaque detection by contrast-enhanced multi-detector computed tomography: a study of interobserver agreement. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006; 47(1):207-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2005.10.005. View

17.

Ovrehus K, Munkholm H, Bottcher M, Botker H, Norgaard B . Coronary computed tomographic angiography in patients suspected of coronary artery disease: impact of observer experience on diagnostic performance and interobserver reproducibility. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2010; 4(3):186-94. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcct.2010.03.010. View