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.

OBJECTIVES: 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). METHODS: 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). RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSION: 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. KEY POINTS: • There are significant differences between EAT volume and attenuation values between software platforms, regardless of scan type. • Non-contrast scans routinely have higher mean EAT volume and attenuation; however, this finding is only consistently seen with research-specific software. • Of the three analyzed packages, research-specific software demonstrates the highest reproducibility, agreement, and reliability for both inter-scan and inter-observer agreement.

Breast arterial calcification and epicardial adipose tissue volume, but not density are independently associated with cardiovascular risk.

BACKGROUND: Mammographically detected breast arterial calcification (BAC) has been proposed as surrogate marker for coronary artery disease (CAD) in women. Epicardial adipose tissue (EAT) and peri-coronary adipose tissue (PCAT) are inflammatory fat depots linked to atherogenesis. BAC has demonstrated association with inflammation, therefore we aimed to determine the association between BAC, EAT and PCAT. METHODS: Single-centre, retrospective, cross-sectional study of women with digital mammography and coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA). EAT and PCAT were quantitively assessed using semi-automated software. Patient demographics and cardiovascular risk factors were obtained from medical records and mammograms reviewed for BAC. Pre-test cardiovascular risk was determined with CAD Consortium Score. Chi-square, t-test and Mann-Whitney U tests were used to assess between group differences. Multivariable linear and logistic regression modelling was conducted to adjust for confounders. RESULTS: Among 153 patients (age 61, SD 11) included in this study, BAC was present in 37 (24%) patients. BAC-positive patients had higher EAT volume (EATv) (110.2 mL, SD 41 mL vs 94.4 mL, SD 41 mL, p = 0.02) but this association was not significant after adjusting for cardiovascular risk factors (p = 0.26). BAC did not associate with EAT density or PCAT. BAC and EATv were strongly associated with cardiovascular risk and CAD independent of each other: CV risk (BAC OR 7.55 (3.26-18.49), p < 0.001, EATv OR 1.02 (1.01-1.03), p < 0.001), CAD presence (BAC OR 4.26 (1.39-13), p = 0.01; EATv OR 1.01 (1.0-1.03), p = 0.04). CONCLUSION: BAC and EATv are independent predictors of CV risk and CAD, but don't independently associate with each other, the relationship confounded by shared cardiovascular risk factors. BAC doesn't appear to associate with adipose tissue density and its presence may be cumulative result of long-term exposure to CV risk factors.