Relationship between automated coronary calcium volumes and a set of manual coronary lumen volume, vessel volume and atheroma volume in japanese diabetic cohort

Introduction: A high degree of correlation exists between Coronary Artery Diseases (CAD) and calcification of the vessel wall. For Percutaneous Coronary Interventional (PCI) planning, it is essential to have an exact understanding of the extent to which calcium volume is correlated to the lumen, vessel, and atheroma volume regions in the coronary artery, which is unclear in recent studies. Aim: Four automated Coronary Calcium Volume (aCCV) measurement methods threshold, Fuzzy c-Means (FCM), K-means, and Hidden Markov Random Field (HMRF) and its correlation with three manual (experts) coronary parameters namely: Coronary Vessel Volume (mCVV), Coronary Lumen Volume (mCLV), and Coronary Atheroma Volume (mCAV), was determined in a Japanese diabetic cohort. Materials and Methods: Intravascular Ultrasound (IVUS) image dataset from 19 patients (around 40,090 frames) was collected using 40 MHz IVUS catheter (Atlantis® SR Pro, Boston Scientific®, pullback speed of 0.5 mm/sec). The methodology consisted of automatically computing the calcium volume in the entire IVUS coronary videos using FCM, K-means, and HMRF based pixel classification and comparing it against the previously published threshold-based method. The Coefficient of Correlation (CC) was then established between the four aCCV and three manually (experts) coronary parameters: mCVV, mCLV, and mCAV computed using iMAP software Boston Scientific®. Statistical tests (Two-tailed paired Student t-test, Wilcoxon signed rank test, Mann-Whitney test, Chi-square test, and Kolmogorov-Smirnov KS-test) were performed to demonstrate consistency, reliability, and accuracy of the proposed work. Results: Correlation coefficient of: (a) automated threshold-based volume; (b) automated FCM based volume; (c) automated K-means based volume; and (d) automated HMRF based volume and corresponding three manually (expert’s) coronary parameters (mCLV, mCVV, mCAV) were: (0.51, 0.40, 0.48), (0.52, 0.38, 0.49), (0.56, 0.45, 0.52), and (0.57, 0.42, 0.56), respectively. The CC between age and haemoglobin was 0.50. Conclusion: Automated coronary volume measurement using HMRF method is more accurate compared to threshold, FCM, and K-means-based method, since it is more strongly correlated with three expert’s readings.