Influence of technical parameters on epicardial fat volume quantification at cardiac CT

• Upper threshold levels and contrast enhancement influence epicardial fat volumetry.
• Cardiac cycle does not significantly influence epicardial fat volumetry.
• Adjustments of upper threshold can lead to comparable volumetry results.

ObjectivesTo systematically analyze the influence of technical parameters on quantification of epicardial fat volume (EATV) at cardiac CT.Methods153 routine cardiac CT data sets were analyzed using three-dimensional pericardial border delineation. Three image series were reconstructed per patient: (a) CTAD: coronary CT angiography (CTA), diastolic phase; (b) CTAS: coronary CTA, systolic phase; (c) CaScD: non-contrast CT, diastolic phase. EATV was calculated using three different upper thresholds (−15HU, −30HU, −45HU). Repeated measures ANOVA, Spearman's rho, and Bland Altman plots were used.ResultsMean EATV differed between all three image series at a −30HU threshold (CTAD 87.2 ± 38.5 ml, CTAS 90.9 ± 37.7 ml, CaScD 130.7 ± 49.5 ml, P < 0.001). EATV of diastolic and systolic CTA reconstructions did not differ significantly (P = 0.225). Mean EATV for contrast enhanced CTA at a −15HU threshold (CTAD15 102.4 ± 43.6 ml, CTAS15 105.3 ± 42.3 ml) could be approximated most closely by non-contrast CT at −45HU threshold (CaScD45 105.3 ± 40.8 ml). The correlation was excellent: CTAS15–CTAD15, rho = 0.943; CTAD15–CaScD45, rho = 0.905; CTAS15–CaScD45, rho = 0.924; each P < 0.001). Bias values from Bland Altman Analysis were: CTAS15–CTAD15, 4.9%; CTAD15–CaScD45, −4.3%; CTAS15–CaScD45, 0.6%.ConclusionsMeasured EATV can differ substantially between contrast enhanced and non-contrast CT studies, which can be reconciled by threshold modification. Heart cycle phase does not significantly influence EATV measurements.