Panse, Prasad M.

The purpose of this study is to evaluate a direct measure of calcium burden by using dual‐energy computed tomography (DECT) during contrast‐enhanced coronary imaging, potentially eliminating the need for an extra noncontrast X‐ray acquisition. The ambiguity of separation of calcium from contrast material on contrast‐enhanced images was solved by using virtual noncontrast images obtained by DECT. A new threshold CT number was required to detect the calcium carrying potential risk for adverse coronary events on virtual noncontrast images. Two methods were investigated to determine the 130 HU threshold for DECT scoring. An in vitro anthropomorphic phantom with 29 excised patient calcium plaques inserted was used for both a linear and a logistic regression analysis. An IRB approved in vivo prospective study of six patients was also performed to be used for logistic regression analysis. The threshold found by logistic regression model to define the calcium burden on virtual noncontrast images detects the calcium carrying potential risk for adverse coronary events correctly (2.45% error rate). DECT calcium mass and volume scores obtained by using the threshold correlates with both conventional Agatston and volume scores . A conventional CT cardiac exam requires two scans, including a noncontrast scan for calcium quantification and a contrast‐enhanced scan for coronary angiography. With the ability to quantify calcium on DECT contrast‐enhanced images, a DECT cardiac exam could be accomplished with one contrast‐enhanced scan for both calcium quantification and coronary angiography.PACS numbers: 87.57.Q, 87.57.N

BackgroundThe development of a left ventricular (LV) apical pouch in patients with apical hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (aHCM) has been thought to be the transition point that can become an apical aneurysm, which is linked to higher risk of adverse events. In our study, we sought to compare the ability of transthoracic echocardiography (echo) and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (cMRI) to accurately identify the presence of an apical pouch or aneurysm in patients with aHCM.MethodsWe retrospectively reviewed the charts of all consecutive patients that had features of aHCM on imaging. Data from cMRI and echo examinations were abstracted, and the ability of these diagnostic modalities to identify the presence of a LV apical pouch and aneurysm was analyzed.ResultsOf 31 patients with aHCM, 17 (54.8%) had an apical pouch and 2 were found to have apical aneurysm (6.5%) on cMRI. Echo with and without perflutren contrast was able to accurately identify both aneurysms, but only 47.1% (8/17) of apical pouches seen by cMRI. Two patients had apical thrombus that was identified by cMRI, but not by echo.ConclusionOur findings indicate that cMRI is superior to echo in identifying apical pouches in patients with aHCM. Our results also suggest that in patients undergoing echo, the use of perflutren contrast for LV opacification increases the diagnostic yield. Further study is necessary to delineate whether earlier identification of an apical pouch will be of clinical benefit for patients with aHCM by altering clinical management and avoiding adverse cardiovascular events.

Pulmonary fibrosis in surgical lung biopsies is said to have a ‘usual interstitial pneumonia- pattern ’ (UIP- pattern ) of disease when scarring of the parenchyma is present in a patchy, ‘temporally heterogeneous’ distribution. These biopsies are one of the more common non-neoplastic specimens surgical pathologists encounter and often pose a number of challenges. UIP is the expected histopathological pattern in patients with clinical idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF), but the UIP- pattern can be seen in other conditions on occasion. Most important among these are the rheumatic interstitial lung diseases (RILD) and chronic hypersensitivity pneumonitis (CHrHP). Because theses entities have different mechanisms of injury, approach to therapy, and expected clinical progression, it is imperative for the surgical pathologist to correctly classify them. Taken in isolation, the UIP- pattern seen in patients with IPF may appear to overlap with that of RILD and CHrHP, at least when using the broadest definition of this term (patchy fibrosis). However, important distinguishing features are nearly always present in our experience, and the addition of a multidisciplinary approach will often resolve the critical differences between these diseases. In this manuscript, we review the distinguishing clinical, radiologic and histopathological features of UIP of IPF, RILD and CHrHP, based, in part, on the existing literature, but also lessons learned from a busy lung biopsy consultation practice.