Zhonghua Sun1, Robert Davidson, Cheng Hsun Lin. 1. Discipline of Medical Imaging, Department of Imaging and Applied Physics, Curtin University of Technology, GPO Box, U1987, Perth 6845, Western Australia, Australia. z.sun@curtin.edu.au
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review of the diagnostic accuracy of multi-detector row computed tomography angiography (MDCT) for detection of coronary in-stent restenosis in patients treated with coronary stenting when compared to invasive catheter angiography. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A search of PUBMED and MEDLINE databases for English literature was performed. Only studies with at least 10 patients comparing 16- or more detector rows MDCT angiography with invasive catheter angiography in the detection of coronary in-stent restenosis (more than 50% stenosis) were included for analysis. Sensitivity and specificity estimates pooled across studies were tested using a fixed effects model. RESULTS: 15 studies met selection criteria for inclusion in the analysis. There were eight studies performed with 16-detector row CT scanners, and five studies with 64-detector row scanners and one study with a 40-detector scanner. The remaining study was performed with a mixture of 16-and 64-detector row scanners. Prevalence of in-stent restenosis following coronary stenting was 18% (95% CI: 13, 24%). Pooled estimates of the sensitivity and specificity of overall MDCT angiography for the detection of coronary in-stent restenosis was 85% (95% CI: 78, 90%) and 97% (95% CI: 95, 98%), respectively. No significant difference was found between 16- and 64-detector row scanners regarding the sensitivity and specificity of MDCT for assessment of in-stent restenosis (p>0.05). CONCLUSION: The results showed that MDCT angiography (with 16 or more detector rows) has moderate sensitivity and high specificity for the detection of coronary in-stent restenosis when compared to invasive catheter angiography. A high specificity value of MDCT may be most valuable as a non-invasive technique of excluding coronary stent restenosis or occlusion. The main factors affecting visualization are stent diameters and stent materials.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review of the diagnostic accuracy of multi-detector row computed tomography angiography (MDCT) for detection of coronary in-stent restenosis in patients treated with coronary stenting when compared to invasive catheter angiography. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A search of PUBMED and MEDLINE databases for English literature was performed. Only studies with at least 10 patients comparing 16- or more detector rows MDCT angiography with invasive catheter angiography in the detection of coronary in-stent restenosis (more than 50% stenosis) were included for analysis. Sensitivity and specificity estimates pooled across studies were tested using a fixed effects model. RESULTS: 15 studies met selection criteria for inclusion in the analysis. There were eight studies performed with 16-detector row CT scanners, and five studies with 64-detector row scanners and one study with a 40-detector scanner. The remaining study was performed with a mixture of 16-and 64-detector row scanners. Prevalence of in-stent restenosis following coronary stenting was 18% (95% CI: 13, 24%). Pooled estimates of the sensitivity and specificity of overall MDCT angiography for the detection of coronary in-stent restenosis was 85% (95% CI: 78, 90%) and 97% (95% CI: 95, 98%), respectively. No significant difference was found between 16- and 64-detector row scanners regarding the sensitivity and specificity of MDCT for assessment of in-stent restenosis (p>0.05). CONCLUSION: The results showed that MDCT angiography (with 16 or more detector rows) has moderate sensitivity and high specificity for the detection of coronary in-stent restenosis when compared to invasive catheter angiography. A high specificity value of MDCT may be most valuable as a non-invasive technique of excluding coronary stent restenosis or occlusion. The main factors affecting visualization are stent diameters and stent materials.
Authors: E di Cesare; I Carbone; A Carriero; M Centonze; F De Cobelli; R De Rosa; P Di Renzi; A Esposito; R Faletti; R Fattori; M Francone; A Giovagnoni; L La Grutta; G Ligabue; L Lovato; R Marano; M Midiri; L Natale; A Romagnoli; V Russo; F Sardanelli; F Cademartiri Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2012-04-01 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: Florian Wolf; Sebastian Leschka; Christian Loewe; Peter Homolka; Christina Plank; Ruediger Schernthaner; Dominik Bercaczy; Robert Goetti; Johannes Lammer; Guy Friedrich; Borut Marincek; Hatem Alkadhi; Gudrun Feuchtner Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2010-04-16 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Floris Tm Bosch; Jeroen Hendrikse; Indran Davagnanam; Leo H Bonati; Aad van der Lugt; H B van der Worp; Gert J de Borst; Willem Mali; Martin M Brown; Paul J Nederkoorn Journal: Eur Stroke J Date: 2016-11-04
Authors: Young Jin Kim; Hwan Seok Yong; Sung Mok Kim; Jeong A Kim; Dong Hyun Yang; Yoo Jin Hong Journal: Korean J Radiol Date: 2015-02-27 Impact factor: 3.500
Authors: Matthias Rief; Sarah Feger; Peter Martus; Michael Laule; Marc Dewey; Eva Schönenberger Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-09-01 Impact factor: 3.240