M5 Reporting incidental coronary and cardiac calcification on thoracic CT– BSCI/BSCCT survey of radiologist opinions. (7th September 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Williams, Michelle C; Weir-McCall, Jonathan; Moss, Alastair; Schmitt, Matthias; Stirrup, James; Holloway, Ben; Gopalan, Deepa; Deshpande, Aparna; Hughes, Gareth Morgan; Agrawal, Bobby; Nicol, Edward; Roditi, Giles; Shambrook, James; Bull, Russell
• Is Part Of: Heart. Volume 106(2020)Supplement 3
• Page Start: A4
• Page End: A4
• Publication Date: 2020-09-07
• Subjects: Heart -- Diseases -- Treatment -- Periodicals; Cardiology -- Periodicals; 616.12
• DOI: 10.1136/heartjnl-2020-BSCI.10
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1355-6037

Abstract

Abstract : Introduction: Coronary and cardiac calcifications are common incidental findings on thoracic CT which are frequently not reported. This survey sought the opinions of UK radiologists regarding reporting of incidental calcification. Methods: Using an online survey form UK radiologists were invited to answer questions regarding reporting of coronary, aortic valve, mitral and thoracic aorta calcification on routine non-cardiac/vascular thoracic CT. Results: 210 radiologists completed the survey including 24 (11%) trainees and 186 (89%) consultants. 30% were not sub-specialists in cardiac, thoracic or vascular imaging. Calcification was not reported by 11% for the coronary arteries, 21% for the aortic valve, 25% for the mitral valve and 38% for the aorta. Age and indication for imaging were the most frequent factors influencing the reporting of calcification. For coronary calcification a per patient visual assessment was the most frequently used (66%), followed by per vessel visual assessment (14%), semi-quantitative scoring (5%) and Agatston scoring (2%). Several comments suggested that guidelines for reporting incidental coronary and cardiac calcification would be useful. Conclusion: Reporting of incidental coronary and cardiac calcification varies widely and guidelines are required.