관상동맥 협착 진단을 위한 workstation별 QCA값의 비교 평가

A Comparison on QCA Values Based on the Workstations for Diagnosing Coronary Arteriostenosis

Purpose As 64 Multi-Detector Computed Tomography systems were recently introduced and software has been variously developed, coronary CT angiography has been clinically come into notice. The patients, diagnosed with coronary arteriostenosis due to thrombi, were subject to this study. In this study, Quantitative Coronary Analysis value was comparatively analyzed by using the workstations produced by 4 companies respectively. Materials and Methods The 20 patients who showed the stenos is of the left anterior descending artery due to thrombi, among the patients, who underwent coronary CT angiography from November 2006 until January 2007, were subject to this study. The CT angiography was performed by using Toshiba Aquilion 64 under the condition of 120kVp, 400mA, 0.4sec tube rotation time. In result, the images of 75, 35, 45 and 90% with the sectional thickness of 0.5mm/0.4mm were taken and were transmitted to the workstation for image reconstruction. Extended brilliance workstation, Advantage workstation, Vitrea workstation, and TeraRecon workstation were used to measuring instruments, and QCA value, i.e., the stenos is degree of left anterior descending artery, was measured. Results 1. With regard to the QCA value based on area value, TeraRecon workstation showed the highest value but the value of PDW was lowest. 2. With regard to the QCA value based on average diameter value, the value of Vitrea workstation was highest but ADW also showed the lowest value. Conclusion QCA values were measured by using the workstations produced by 4 companies respectively; with the consequence that the values become different as to company and TeraRecon workstation and Vitrea workstation did not show conspicuous differences in case the vascular diameter is over 3mm. However, EBW and ADW showed remarkable differences in case the vascular diameter is less than 3mm. In case the vascular area is over 6mm², TeraRecon workstation and Vitrea workstation did not significant differences. When compared to QCA, the ability of workstation to quantitatively assess coronaiy artery diameters and coronary artery stenases is insufficient for clinical purposes