Radiologist opinions regarding reporting incidental coronary and cardiac calcification on thoracic CT.

BJR open Pub Date : 2022-03-11 eCollection Date: 2022-01-01 DOI:10.1259/bjro.20210057
Michelle C Williams, Jonathan Weir-McCall, Alastair J Moss, Matthias Schmitt, James Stirrup, Ben Holloway, Deepa Gopalan, Aparna Deshpande, Gareth Morgan Hughes, Bobby Agrawal, Edward Nicol, Giles Roditi, James Shambrook, Russell Bull
{"title":"Radiologist opinions regarding reporting incidental coronary and cardiac calcification on thoracic CT.","authors":"Michelle C Williams, Jonathan Weir-McCall, Alastair J Moss, Matthias Schmitt, James Stirrup, Ben Holloway, Deepa Gopalan, Aparna Deshpande, Gareth Morgan Hughes, Bobby Agrawal, Edward Nicol, Giles Roditi, James Shambrook, Russell Bull","doi":"10.1259/bjro.20210057","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Coronary and cardiac calcification are frequent incidental findings on non-gated thoracic computed tomography (CT). However, radiologist opinions and practices regarding the reporting of incidental calcification are poorly understood.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>UK radiologists were invited to complete this online survey, organised by the British Society of Cardiovascular Imaging (BSCI). Questions included anonymous information on subspecialty, level of training and reporting practices for incidental coronary artery, aortic valve, mitral and thoracic aorta calcification.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The survey was completed by 200 respondents: 10% trainees and 90% consultants. Calcification was not reported by 11% for the coronary arteries, 22% for the aortic valve, 35% for the mitral valve and 37% for the thoracic aorta. Those who did not subspecialise in cardiac imaging were less likely to report coronary artery calcification (<i>p</i> = 0.005), aortic valve calcification (<i>p</i> = 0.001) or mitral valve calcification (<i>p</i> = 0.008), but there was no difference in the reporting of thoracic aorta calcification. Those who did not subspecialise in cardiac imaging were also less likely to provide management recommendations for coronary artery calcification (<i>p</i> < 0.001) or recommend echocardiography for aortic valve calcification (<i>p</i> < 0.001), but there was no difference for mitral valve or thoracic aorta recommendations.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Incidental coronary artery, valvular and aorta calcification are frequently not reported on thoracic CT and there are differences in reporting practices based on subspeciality.</p><p><strong>Advances in knowledge: </strong>On routine thoracic CT, 11% of radiologists do not report coronary artery calcification. Radiologist reporting practices vary depending on subspeciality but not level of training.</p>","PeriodicalId":72419,"journal":{"name":"BJR open","volume":"4 1","pages":"20210057"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9459857/pdf/","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BJR open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1259/bjro.20210057","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Objectives: Coronary and cardiac calcification are frequent incidental findings on non-gated thoracic computed tomography (CT). However, radiologist opinions and practices regarding the reporting of incidental calcification are poorly understood.

Methods: UK radiologists were invited to complete this online survey, organised by the British Society of Cardiovascular Imaging (BSCI). Questions included anonymous information on subspecialty, level of training and reporting practices for incidental coronary artery, aortic valve, mitral and thoracic aorta calcification.

Results: The survey was completed by 200 respondents: 10% trainees and 90% consultants. Calcification was not reported by 11% for the coronary arteries, 22% for the aortic valve, 35% for the mitral valve and 37% for the thoracic aorta. Those who did not subspecialise in cardiac imaging were less likely to report coronary artery calcification (p = 0.005), aortic valve calcification (p = 0.001) or mitral valve calcification (p = 0.008), but there was no difference in the reporting of thoracic aorta calcification. Those who did not subspecialise in cardiac imaging were also less likely to provide management recommendations for coronary artery calcification (p < 0.001) or recommend echocardiography for aortic valve calcification (p < 0.001), but there was no difference for mitral valve or thoracic aorta recommendations.

Conclusion: Incidental coronary artery, valvular and aorta calcification are frequently not reported on thoracic CT and there are differences in reporting practices based on subspeciality.

Advances in knowledge: On routine thoracic CT, 11% of radiologists do not report coronary artery calcification. Radiologist reporting practices vary depending on subspeciality but not level of training.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

放射科医生对胸部CT报告偶发冠状动脉和心脏钙化的意见。
目的:冠状动脉和心脏钙化是胸部非门控计算机断层扫描(CT)常见的偶然发现。然而,放射科医生对意外钙化报告的意见和实践知之甚少。方法:邀请英国放射科医生完成这项由英国心血管影像学学会(BSCI)组织的在线调查。问题包括亚专科、培训水平和意外冠状动脉、主动脉瓣、二尖瓣和胸主动脉钙化报告的匿名信息。结果:本次调查共有200名受访者完成,其中学员占10%,咨询师占90%。11%的冠状动脉、22%的主动脉瓣、35%的二尖瓣和37%的胸主动脉没有钙化。没有专门研究心脏影像学的患者报告冠状动脉钙化(p = 0.005)、主动脉瓣钙化(p = 0.001)或二尖瓣钙化(p = 0.008)的可能性较小,但报告胸主动脉钙化的可能性没有差异。那些没有专门从事心脏成像的人也不太可能提供冠状动脉钙化的管理建议(p < 0.001)或推荐超声心动图检查主动脉瓣钙化(p < 0.001),但二尖瓣或胸主动脉的建议没有差异。结论:偶发的冠状动脉、瓣膜和主动脉钙化在胸部CT上经常未被报道,不同的亚专科在报道方法上存在差异。知识进展:在常规胸部CT上,11%的放射科医生未报告冠状动脉钙化。放射科医生的报告实践因专科而异,但不受培训水平的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
18 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信