PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to assess the diagnostic accuracy of 64-slice computed tomography (64-CT) coronary angiography in the detection of coronary in-stent restenosis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ninety-five patients (72 men and 23 women, mean age 58+/-8 years) with previous percutaneous coronary intervention with stenting and suspected restenosis underwent 64-CT (Sensation 64, Siemens). The mean time between stent deployment and 64-CT was 6.1+/-4.2 months. The scan parameters were: slices 32 x 2, individual detector width 0.6 mm, rotation time 0.33 s, feed 3.84 mm/rotation, 120 kV, 900 mAs. After the intravenous administration of iodinated contrast material (Iomeprol 400 mgI/ml, Iomeron, Bracco) and a bolus chaser (40 ml of saline), the scan was completed in <12 s. All coronary segments with a stent were assessed on 64-CT by two observers in consensus and judged as: patent, with intimal hyperplasia (lumen reduction of <50%), with in-stent restenosis (> or =50%), or with in-stent occlusion (100%). The consensus reading was compared with conventional coronary angiography. RESULTS: Four patients were excluded because of insufficient image quality. In the remaining 91, we assessed 102 stents (31 RCA; 10 LM; 54 LAD; 7 CX). In 14 (13.7%) stents, in-stent restenosis (n=8) or in-stent occlusion (n=6) was found. Intimal hyperplasia was detected in 11 (10.8%) stents. The sensitivity and negative predictive value of 64-CT for in-stent occlusion were 100% and 100%, respectively, whereas for all stenoses, >50% they were 92.9% and 98.7%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: We found that 64-CT has a high diagnostic accuracy for the detection of in-stent restenosis in a selected patient population.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to assess the diagnostic accuracy of 64-slice computed tomography (64-CT) coronary angiography in the detection of coronary in-stent restenosis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ninety-five patients (72 men and 23 women, mean age 58+/-8 years) with previous percutaneous coronary intervention with stenting and suspected restenosis underwent 64-CT (Sensation 64, Siemens). The mean time between stent deployment and 64-CT was 6.1+/-4.2 months. The scan parameters were: slices 32 x 2, individual detector width 0.6 mm, rotation time 0.33 s, feed 3.84 mm/rotation, 120 kV, 900 mAs. After the intravenous administration of iodinated contrast material (Iomeprol 400 mgI/ml, Iomeron, Bracco) and a bolus chaser (40 ml of saline), the scan was completed in <12 s. All coronary segments with a stent were assessed on 64-CT by two observers in consensus and judged as: patent, with intimal hyperplasia (lumen reduction of <50%), with in-stent restenosis (> or =50%), or with in-stent occlusion (100%). The consensus reading was compared with conventional coronary angiography. RESULTS: Four patients were excluded because of insufficient image quality. In the remaining 91, we assessed 102 stents (31 RCA; 10 LM; 54 LAD; 7 CX). In 14 (13.7%) stents, in-stent restenosis (n=8) or in-stent occlusion (n=6) was found. Intimal hyperplasia was detected in 11 (10.8%) stents. The sensitivity and negative predictive value of 64-CT for in-stent occlusion were 100% and 100%, respectively, whereas for all stenoses, >50% they were 92.9% and 98.7%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: We found that 64-CT has a high diagnostic accuracy for the detection of in-stent restenosis in a selected patient population.
Authors: S Möhlenkamp; H Pump; D Baumgart; M Haude; D H Grönemeyer; R M Seibel; R S Schwartz; R Erbel Journal: Catheter Cardiovasc Interv Date: 1999-09 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Tobias F Jakobs; Christoph R Becker; Bernd Ohnesorge; Thomas Flohr; Christoph Suess; Uwe J Schoepf; Maximilian F Reiser Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2002-02-21 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: David Maintz; Harald Seifarth; Thomas Flohr; Stefan Krämer; Thomas Wichter; Walter Heindel; Roman Fischbach Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2003-12 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: F Cademartiri; G Luccichenti; R Marano; K Nieman; N Mollet; P De Feyter; G P Krestin; P Pavone; L Bonomo Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2003-10 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: F Cademartiri; P Malagutti; M Belgrano; G Runza; F Pugliese; N R Mollet; W B Meijboom; G P Krestin; P J De Feyter Journal: Minerva Cardioangiol Date: 2005-10 Impact factor: 1.347
Authors: David Maintz; Harald Seifarth; Rainer Raupach; Thomas Flohr; Michael Rink; Torsten Sommer; Murat Ozgün; Walter Heindel; Roman Fischbach Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2005-12-07 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: P W Serruys; P de Jaegere; F Kiemeneij; C Macaya; W Rutsch; G Heyndrickx; H Emanuelsson; J Marco; V Legrand; P Materne Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1994-08-25 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Alexandre Abizaid; Marco A Costa; Didier Blanchard; Mariano Albertal; Hélèn Eltchaninoff; Giulio Guagliumi; Laarman Geert-Jan; Andrea S Abizaid; Amanda G M R Sousa; Egon Wuelfert; Lindeboom Wietze; J Eduardo Sousa; Patrick W Serruys; Marie-Claude Morice Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2004-01 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Victor M G Legrand; Patrick W Serruys; Felix Unger; Ben A van Hout; Mathias C M Vrolix; Geert M P Fransen; Torsten Toftegaard Nielsen; Peter Kildeberg Paulsen; Ricardo Seabra Gomes; João M G de Queiroz e Melo; José P Marques dos Santos Neves; Wietze Lindeboom; Bianca Backx Journal: Circulation Date: 2004-03-01 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: L La Grutta; G Runza; G Gentile; E Russo; G Lo Re; M Galia; T V Bartolotta; V Alaimo; R Malagò; F Cademartiri; A E Cardinale; M Midiri Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2011-03-07 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: R Malagò; A Pezzato; C Barbiani; W Mantovani; G Caliari; U Alfonsi; D Tavella; R Pozzi Mucelli Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2011-09-02 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: Ludovico La Grutta; Sabina La Grutta; Massimo Galia; Giuseppe Lo Piccolo; Giovanni Gentile; Giuseppe La Tona; Maria Stella Epifanio; Erica Maffei; Filippo Cademartiri; Rosa Lo Baido; Roberto Lagalla; Massimo Midiri Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2013-11-26 Impact factor: 3.469