Quantification of epi- and pericardial adipose tissue deposits between males and females during cardiac CT may potentially help categorize coronary artery disease risk with thoracic circumference.

INTRODUCTION: This study aims to investigate the association between epi- and pericardial adipose tissue deposits around the heart against patient body habitus when using cardiac computed tomography (CT). METHODS: Ninety-two consecutive patients with suspected coronary artery disease underwent coronary CT angiography with quantitative cardiac and adipose tissue volume measurements. Body mass index (BMI), body surface area (BSA), thoracic circumference, anteroposterior diameter, cardiac and adipose tissue volumes were compared between genders by employing Pearson's correlation and results were considered statistically significant if p ≤ 0.05. RESULTS: Statistically significant differences between genders were observed with males having a greater height (males 1.72 ± 0.11), BMI (30.76 ± 7.87 kg/m2), BSA (2.06 ± 0.21 m2), thoracic circumference (1022.12 ± 97.90 mm2), and pericardial adipose tissue volume (46.72 ± 36.62 mm3) (p < 0.05). For men, for Group 1 (BMI ≤ 27) each of the measured volumes showed moderate correlation between pericardial adipose tissue and AP chest-diameter (r = 0.429, p <0.05), whereas in Group 2 (27 < BMI ≤ 31.1), coronary artery volume had a strong association with the AP chest-diameter (r = 0.453, p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: BMI and thoracic circumference are closely related to variable epi- and pericardial adipose tissue volumes in both males and females during cardiac CT. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Quantification of epi- and pericardial adipose tissue deposits between males and females during cardiac CT may help further categorise coronary artery disease risk when including BMI and thoracic circumference for males and females.

To repeat or not to repeat: Radiologists demonstrated more decisiveness than their fellow radiographers in reducing the repeat rate during mobile chest radiography.

INTRODUCTION: Radiologists and radiographers play a complementary role in providing an optimal image quality with decrease radiation dose and proper diagnosis during chest radiographs. We aim Investigate years of experience among radiologists and radiographers on perception of image quality and its impact on repeat rate when evaluating portable pediatric chest radiographs. METHODS: IRB approved retrospective study consisted of randomly selected images (n = 131) of pediatric portable chest radiographs. Images were blindly assessed by four radiologists and four radiographers. Readers were asked to assess qualitative and quantitative image quality by rating: image quality, decision to repeat and image technique. All data was compared employing Pearson's Correlation, Visual grading characteristic (VGC) and Cohens' kappa analyses. RESULTS: Image quality: Radiologists (88.4%) rated images as excellent significantly more than radiographers (11.6%), and radiographers (90.1%) as poor significantly more than radiologists (9.9%) (p < 0.05). Repeat: Radiologists (57%) decided not to repeat images significantly more than radiographers (43%) (p < 0.05). Image technique: Radiologists rated images as acceptable (65%) and excellent (97.7%) significantly more than radiographers (35% and 2.3% respectively) (p < 0.05), whereas radiographers (84%) assessed image technique as poor significantly more than radiologists (16%) (p < 0.05). VGC: radiographers had slightly better qualitative evaluation of image quality than radiologists. An association between image quality (p < 0.002) and repeat decision (p < 0.044) with years of experience was established when comparing years of experience with image assessment rubric, while no association was noted with image technique (p < 0.9). CONCLUSION: Radiologists demonstrated more decisiveness than their fellow radiographers in reducing the repeat rate of portable pediatric chest radiographs. Interestingly, years of experience only seem to affect image technique and image quality assessment among radiologists. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Continuous education of radiographers and close collaboration with radiologists is crucial to achieve optimal image quality and low radiation doses.