There is a newer version of the record available.

Published 2023 | Version v1
Journal article

Inter-software and inter-scan variability in measurement of epicardial adipose tissue. A three-way comparison of a research-specific, a freeware and a coronary application software platform

  • 1. Monash Cardiovascular Research Centre, Monash University and MonashHeart, Monash Health, Clayton, VIC (Australia)
  • 2. Cedars Sinai Medical Center, Biomedical Imaging Research Institute, Los Angeles, CA (United States)
  • 3. Baker Heart and Diabetes Institute, Melbourne, VIC (Australia)

Description

Epicardial adipose tissue (EAT) is a proposed marker of cardiovascular risk; however, clinical application may be limited by variability in post-processing software platforms. We assessed inter-vendor agreement of EAT volume (EATv) and attenuation on both contrast-enhanced (CE) and non-contrast CT (NCT) using a standard coronary CT reporting software (Vitrea), an EAT research-specific software (QFAT) and a freeware imaging software (OsiriX). Seventy-six consecutive patients undergoing simultaneous CE and NCT had complete volumetric EAT measurement. Between-software, within-software NCT vs. CE, and inter- and intra-observer agreement were evaluated with analysis by ANOVA (with post hoc adjustment), Bland-Altman with 95% levels of agreement (LoA) and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Mean EATv (freeware 53 ± 31 mL vs. research 93 ± 43 mL vs. coronary 157 ± 64 mL) and attenuation (freeware - 72 ± 25 HU vs. research - 75 ± 3 HU vs. coronary - 61 ± 10 HU) were significantly different between all vendors (ANOVA p < 0.001). EATv was consistently higher in NCT vs. CE for all software packages, with most reproducibility found in research software (bias 26 mL, 95% LoA: 2 to 56 mL), compared to freeware (bias 11 mL 95% LoA: - 46 mL to 69 mL) and coronary software (bias 10 mL 95% LoA: - 127 to 147 mL). Research software had more comparable NCT vs. CE attenuation (- 75 vs. - 72 HU) compared to freeware (- 72 vs. - 57 HU) and coronary (- 61 vs. - 39 HU). Excellent inter-observer agreement was seen with research (ICC 0.98) compared to freeware (ICC 0.73) and coronary software (ICC 0.75) with narrow LoA on Bland-Altman analysis. There are significant inter-vendor differences in EAT assessment. Our study suggests that research-specific software has better agreement and reproducibility compared to freeware or coronary software platforms.

Additional details

Identifiers

Publishing Information

Journal Title
European Radiology (Internet)
Journal Volume
33
Journal Issue
12
Journal Page Range
p. 8445-8453
ISSN
1432-1084
CODEN
EURAE3