Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:Preoperative cardiovascular risk stratification before noncardiac surgery is a common clinical challenge. Coronary artery calcium scores from ECG-gated chest computed tomography (CT) imaging are associated with perioperative events. At the time of preoperative evaluation, many patients will not have had ECG-gated CT imaging, but will have had nongated chest CT studies performed for a variety of noncardiac indications. We evaluated relationships between coronary calcium severity estimated from previous nongated chest CT imaging and perioperative major clinical events (MCE) after noncardiac surgery. METHODS:We retrospectively identified consecutive adults age ≥45 years who underwent in-hospital, major noncardiac surgery from 2016 to 2020 at a large academic health system composed of 4 acute care centers. All patients had nongated (contrast or noncontrast) chest CT imaging performed within 1 year before surgery. Coronary calcium in each vessel was retrospectively graded from absent to severe using a 0 to 3 scale (absent, mild, moderate, severe) by physicians blinded to clinical data. The estimated coronary calcium burden (ECCB) was computed as the sum of scores for each coronary artery (0 to 9 scale). A Revised Cardiac Risk Index was calculated for each patient. Perioperative MCE was defined as all-cause death or myocardial infarction within 30 days of surgery. RESULTS:<0.0001). An ECCB ≥3 was associated with 2-fold higher adjusted odds of MCE versus an ECCB <3 (adjusted odds ratio, 2.11 [95% CI, 1.42-3.12]). CONCLUSIONS:Prevalence and severity of coronary calcium obtained from existing nongated chest CT imaging improve preoperative clinical risk stratification before noncardiac surgery.

Coronary Artery Disease Reporting and Data System (CAD-RADS) was created to standardize reporting system for patients undergoing coronary CT angiography (CCTA) and to guide possible next steps in patient management. The goal of this updated 2022 CAD-RADS 2.0 is to improve the initial reporting system for CCTA by considering new technical developments in Cardiac CT, including data from recent clinical trials and new clinical guidelines. The updated CAD-RADS classification will follow an established framework of stenosis, plaque burden, and modifiers, which will include assessment of lesion-specific ischemia using CT fractional-flow-reserve (CT-FFR) or myocardial CT perfusion (CTP), when performed. Similar to the method used in the original CAD-RADS version, the determinant for stenosis severity classification will be the most severe coronary artery luminal stenosis on a per-patient basis, ranging from CAD-RADS 0 (zero) for absence of any plaque or stenosis to CAD-RADS 5 indicating the presence of at least one totally occluded coronary artery. Given the increasing data supporting the prognostic relevance of coronary plaque burden, this document will provide various methods to estimate and report total plaque burden. The addition of P1 to P4 descriptors are used to denote increasing categories of plaque burden. The main goal of CAD-RADS, which should always be interpreted together with the impression found in the report, remains to facilitate communication of test results with referring physicians along with suggestions for subsequent patient management. In addition, CAD-RADS will continue to provide a framework of standardization that may benefit education, research, peer-review, artificial intelligence development, clinical trial design, population health and quality assurance with the ultimate goal of improving patient care.

Coronary Artery Disease Reporting and Data System (CAD-RADS) was created to standardize reporting system for patients undergoing coronary CT angiography (CCTA) and to guide possible next steps in patient management. The goal of this updated 2022 CAD-RADS 2.0 is to improve the initial reporting system for CCTA by considering new technical developments in Cardiac CT, including data from recent clinical trials and new clinical guidelines. The updated CAD-RADS classification will follow an established framework of stenosis, plaque burden, and modifiers, which will include assessment of lesion-specific ischemia using CT fractional-flow-reserve (CT-FFR) or myocardial CT perfusion (CTP), when performed. Similar to the method used in the original CAD-RADS version, the determinant for stenosis severity classification will be the most severe coronary artery luminal stenosis on a per-patient basis, ranging from CAD-RADS 0 (zero) for absence of any plaque or stenosis to CAD-RADS 5 indicating the presence of at least one totally occluded coronary artery. Given the increasing data supporting the prognostic relevance of coronary plaque burden, this document will provide various methods to estimate and report total plaque burden. The addition of P1 to P4 descriptors are used to denote increasing categories of plaque burden. The main goal of CAD-RADS, which should always be interpreted together with the impression found in the report, remains to facilitate communication of test results with referring physicians along with suggestions for subsequent patient management. In addition, CAD-RADS will continue to provide a framework of standardization that may benefit education, research, peer-review, artificial intelligence development, clinical trial design, population health and quality assurance with the ultimate goal of improving patient care.

Coronary Artery Disease Reporting and Data System (CAD-RADS) was created to standardize reporting system for patients undergoing coronary CT angiography (CCTA) and to guide possible next steps in patient management. The goal of this updated 2022 CAD-RADS 2.0 is to improve the initial reporting system for CCTA by considering new technical developments in Cardiac CT, including data from recent clinical trials and new clinical guidelines. The updated CAD-RADS classification will follow an established framework of stenosis, plaque burden, and modifiers, which will include assessment of lesion-specific ischemia using CT fractional-flow-reserve (CT-FFR) or myocardial CT perfusion (CTP), when performed. Similar to the method used in the original CAD-RADS version, the determinant for stenosis severity classification will be the most severe coronary artery luminal stenosis on a per-patient basis, ranging from CAD-RADS 0 (zero) for absence of any plaque or stenosis to CAD-RADS 5 indicating the presence of at least one totally occluded coronary artery. Given the increasing data supporting the prognostic relevance of coronary plaque burden, this document will provide various methods to estimate and report total plaque burden. The addition of P1 to P4 descriptors are used to denote increasing categories of plaque burden. The main goal of CAD-RADS, which should always be interpreted together with the impression found in the report, remains to facilitate communication of test results with referring physicians along with suggestions for subsequent patient management. In addition, CAD-RADS will continue to provide a framework of standardization that may benefit education, research, peer-review, artificial intelligence development, clinical trial design, population health and quality assurance with the ultimate goal of improving patient care. Keywords: Coronary Artery Disease, Coronary CTA, CAD-RADS, Reporting and Data System, Stenosis Severity, Report Standardization Terminology, Plaque Burden, Ischemia Supplemental material is available for this article. This article is published synchronously in Radiology: Cardiothoracic Imaging, Journal of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, JACC: Cardiovascular Imaging, Journal of the American College of Radiology, and International Journal for Cardiovascular Imaging. © 2022 Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography. Published by RSNA with permission.

Coronary Artery Disease Reporting and Data System (CAD-RADS) was created to standardize reporting system for patients undergoing coronary CT angiography (CCTA) and to guide possible next steps in patient management. The goal of this updated 2022 CAD-RADS 2.0 is to improve the initial reporting system for CCTA by considering new technical developments in Cardiac CT, including data from recent clinical trials and new clinical guidelines. The updated CAD-RADS classification will follow an established framework of stenosis, plaque burden, and modifiers, which will include assessment of lesion-specific ischemia using CT fractional-flow-reserve (CT-FFR) or myocardial CT perfusion (CTP), when performed. Similar to the method used in the original CAD-RADS version, the determinant for stenosis severity classification will be the most severe coronary artery luminal stenosis on a per-patient basis, ranging from CAD-RADS 0 (zero) for absence of any plaque or stenosis to CAD-RADS 5 indicating the presence of at least one totally occluded coronary artery. Given the increasing data supporting the prognostic relevance of coronary plaque burden, this document will provide various methods to estimate and report total plaque burden. The addition of P1 to P4 descriptors are used to denote increasing categories of plaque burden. The main goal of CAD-RADS, which should always be interpreted together with the impression found in the report, remains to facilitate communication of test results with referring physicians along with suggestions for subsequent patient management. In addition, CAD-RADS will continue to provide a framework of standardization that may benefit education, research, peer-review, artificial intelligence development, clinical trial design, population health and quality assurance with the ultimate goal of improving patient care.

OBJECTIVE. The objective of this article is to assess radiologist concordance in characterizing thyroid nodules using the American College of Radiology Thyroid Imaging Reporting and Data System (TI-RADS), focusing on the effect of radiologist experience on reader concordance. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Three experienced and three less experienced radiologists assessed 150 thyroid nodules using the TI-RADS lexicon. Percent concordance was determined for various endpoints. RESULTS. Interreader concordance for the five TI-RADS categories was 87.2% for shape, 81.2% for composition, 76.1% for echogenicity, 72.9% for margins, and 69.8% for echogenic foci. Concordance for individual features was 96.3% for rim calcifications, 90.8% for macrocalcifications, 90.1% for spongiform, 83.5% for comet tail artifact, and 77.7% for punctate echogenic foci. Concordance for the TI-RADS level and recommendation for fine-needle aspiration (FNA) were 50.4% and 78.9%, respectively. Concordance was significantly (p < 0.05) higher for less experienced readers in identifying margins (84.3% vs 67.4%), echogenic foci (76.9% vs 69.3%), comet tail artifact (89.6% vs 79.2%), and punctate echogenic foci (85.3% vs 75.5%), and lower for peripheral rim calcifications (95.0% vs 97.8 %), but was not different (p > 0.05) for the remaining categories and features. CONCLUSION. A range of TI-RADS categories, features, and recommendations for FNA had generally moderate interreader agreement among six radiologists. Our results show that concordance for numerous characteristics was significantly higher for the less experienced versus the more experienced readers. These results suggest that less experienced readers relied more on the explicit TI-RADS criteria, whereas the experienced radiologists partially relied on their accumulated experience when forming impressions. However, the overall TI-RADS level and recommendation for FNA were unaffected, supporting the robustness of the TI-RADS lexicon and its continued use in practice.

This expert consensus statement from the Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography (SCCT) provides an evidence synthesis on the use of computed tomography (CT) imaging for diagnosis and risk stratification of coronary artery disease in women. From large patient and population cohorts of asymptomatic women, detection of any coronary artery calcium that identifies females with a 10-year atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk of >7.5% may more effectively triage women who may benefit from pharmacologic therapy. In addition to accurate detection of obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD), CT angiography (CTA) identifies nonobstructive atherosclerotic plaque extent and composition which is otherwise not detected by alternative stress testing modalities. Moreover, CTA has superior risk stratification when compared to stress testing in symptomatic women with stable chest pain (or equivalent) symptoms. For the evaluation of symptomatic women both in the emergency department and the outpatient setting, there is abundant evidence from large observational registries and multi-center randomized trials, that CT imaging is an effective procedure. Although radiation doses are far less for CT when compared to nuclear imaging, radiation dose reduction strategies should be applied in all women undergoing CT imaging. Effective and appropriate use of CT imaging can provide the means for improved detection of at-risk women and thereby focus preventive management resulting in long-term risk reduction and improved clinical outcomes.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to determine updated conversion factors (k-factors) that would enable accurate estimation of radiation effective dose (ED) for coronary computed tomography angiography (CTA) and calcium scoring performed on 12 contemporary scanner models and current clinical cardiac protocols and to compare these methods to the standard chest k-factor of 0.014 mSv.mGy-1cm-1. BACKGROUND: Accurate estimation of ED from cardiac CT scans is essential to meaningfully compare the benefits and risks of different cardiac imaging strategies and optimize test and protocol selection. Presently, ED from cardiac CT is generally estimated by multiplying a scanner-reported parameter, the dose-length product, by a k-factor which was determined for noncardiac chest CT, using single-slice scanners and a superseded definition of ED. METHODS: Metal-oxide-semiconductor field-effect transistor radiation detectors were positioned in organs of anthropomorphic phantoms, which were scanned using all cardiac protocols, 120 clinical protocols in total, on 12 CT scanners representing the spectrum of scanners from 5 manufacturers (GE, Hitachi, Philips, Siemens, Toshiba). Organ doses were determined for each protocol, and ED was calculated as defined in International Commission on Radiological Protection Publication 103. Effective doses and scanner-reported dose-length products were used to determine k-factors for each scanner model and protocol. RESULTS: k-Factors averaged 0.026 mSv.mGy-1cm-1 (95% confidence interval: 0.0258 to 0.0266) and ranged between 0.020 and 0.035 mSv.mGy-1cm-1. The standard chest k-factor underestimates ED by an average of 46%, ranging from 30% to 60%, depending on scanner, mode, and tube potential. Factors were higher for prospective axial versus retrospective helical scan modes, calcium scoring versus coronary CTA, and higher (100 to 120 kV) versus lower (80 kV) tube potential and varied among scanner models (range of average k-factors: 0.0229 to 0.0277 mSv.mGy-1cm-1). CONCLUSIONS: Cardiac k-factors for all scanners and protocols are considerably higher than the k-factor currently used to estimate ED of cardiac CT studies, suggesting that radiation doses from cardiac CT have been significantly and systematically underestimated. Using cardiac-specific factors can more accurately inform the benefit-risk calculus of cardiac-imaging strategies.

OBJECTIVE:Radiologic technologists may repeat images within a radiographic examination because of perceived suboptimal image quality, excluding these original images from submission to a PACS. This study assesses the appropriateness of technologists' decisions to repeat musculoskeletal and chest radiographs as well as the utility of repeat radiographs in addressing examinations' clinical indication. MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:We included 95 musculoskeletal and 87 chest radiographic examinations in which the technologist repeated one or more images because of perceived image quality issues, rejecting original images from PACS submission. Rejected images were retrieved from the radiograph unit and uploaded for viewing on a dedicated server. Musculoskeletal and chest radiologists reviewed rejected and repeat images in their timed sequence, in addition to the studies' remaining images. Radiologists answered questions regarding the added value of repeat images. RESULTS:The reviewing radiologist agreed with the reason for rejection for 64.2% of musculoskeletal and 60.9% of chest radiographs. For 77.9% and 93.1% of rejected radiographs, the clinical inquiry could have been satisfied without repeating the image. For 75.8% and 64.4%, the repeated images showed improved image quality. Only 28.4% and 3.4% of repeated images were considered to provide additional information that was helpful in addressing the clinical question. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Most repeated radiographs (chest more so than musculoskeletal radiographs) did not add significant clinical information or alter diagnosis, although they did increase radiation exposure. The decision to repeat images should be made after viewing the questionable image in context with all images in a study and might best be made by a radiologist rather than the performing technologist.

The aims of the current statement are to refine the definition of quality in cardiovascular imaging and to propose novel methodological approaches to inform the demonstration of quality in imaging in future clinical trials and registries. We propose defining quality in cardiovascular imaging using an analytical framework put forth by the Institute of Medicine whereby quality was defined as testing being safe, effective, patient-centered, timely, equitable, and efficient. The implications of each of these components of quality health care are as essential for cardiovascular imaging as they are for other areas within health care. Our proposed statement may serve as the foundation for integrating these quality indicators into establishing designations of quality laboratory practices and developing standards for value-based payment reform for imaging services. We also include recommendations for future clinical research to fulfill quality aims within cardiovascular imaging, including clinical hypotheses of improving patient outcomes, the importance of health status as an end point, and deferred testing options. Future research should evolve to define novel methods optimized for the role of cardiovascular imaging for detecting disease and guiding treatment and to demonstrate the role of cardiovascular imaging in facilitating healthcare quality.