Literature DB >> 19427427

Comparison of feasibility and diagnostic accuracy of 64-slice multidetector computed tomographic coronary angiography versus invasive coronary angiography versus intravascular ultrasound for evaluation of in-stent restenosis.

Daniele Andreini1, Gianluca Pontone, Antonio L Bartorelli, Daniela Trabattoni, Saima Mushtaq, Erika Bertella, Andrea Annoni, Alberto Formenti, Sarah Cortinovis, Piero Montorsi, Fabrizio Veglia, Giovanni Ballerini, Mauro Pepi.   

Abstract

Noninvasive assessment of coronary in-stent restenosis (ISR) is clinically useful but 4- and 16-slice multidetector computed tomography is limited due to stent strut artifacts. We evaluated the feasibility and accuracy of 64-slice multidetector computed tomography in the diagnosis of ISR to validate its accuracy in ISR quantification and identify factors that may affect stent patency evaluability. One hundred patients with previously implanted coronary stents (n = 179) underwent 64-slice multidetector computed tomography followed by invasive coronary angiography. After multidetector computed tomography, each stent was classified as "evaluable" or "unevaluable." Obstructive ISR was visually and quantitatively determined in evaluable stents. Correlations between quantitative multidetector computed tomography and quantitative coronary angiography were estimated. In a subgroup, multidetector computed tomographic and intravascular ultrasound measurements were correlated. Feasibility of stent visualization was 95%. Thirty-four of 39 ISRs (87%) were correctly detected and localized by multidetector computed tomography. ISR was correctly ruled out for 77% (128 of 131) of remaining stented lesions. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of multidetector computed tomography for ISR identification were 87%, 98%, 92%, and 96%, respectively. There was good correlation between percent stenosis evaluated by multidetector computed tomography versus quantitative coronary angiography and intravascular ultrasound (r = 0.794, p <0.001, and r = 0.943, p <0.0001, respectively) and good reproducibility of multidetector computed tomographic measurements (interobserver coefficient k 0.81 for diameter and 0.79 for area). Heart rate, complexity of stenting procedure, stent diameter, and strut thickness were factors limiting feasibility and accuracy. In conclusion, 64-slice multidetector computed tomography provides reliable and reproducible noninvasive evaluation of coronary stent patency and quantification of ISR.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19427427     DOI: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2009.01.343

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Cardiol        ISSN: 0002-9149            Impact factor:   2.778


  14 in total

1.  In-stent area stenosis on 64-slice multi-detector computed tomography coronary angiography: optimal cutoff value for minimum lumen cross-sectional area of coronary stents compared with intravascular ultrasound.

Authors:  Woocheol Kwon; Jiyoun Choi; Jang-Young Kim; Seong-Yoon Kim; Junghan Yoon; Kyoung-Hoon Choe; Seung Hwan Lee; Sung Gyun Ahn
Journal:  Int J Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2012-05-06       Impact factor: 2.357

2.  High diagnostic accuracy of prospective ECG-gating 64-slice computed tomography coronary angiography for the detection of in-stent restenosis: in-stent restenosis assessment by low-dose MDCT.

Authors:  Daniele Andreini; Gianluca Pontone; Antonio L Bartorelli; Saima Mushtaq; Daniela Trabattoni; Erika Bertella; Sarah Cortinovis; Andrea Annoni; Alberto Formenti; Giovanni Ballerini; Piergiuseppe Agostoni; Cesare Fiorentini; Mauro Pepi
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2011-02-18       Impact factor: 5.315

3.  Coronary in-stent restenosis: predisposing clinical and stent-related factors, diagnostic performance and analyses of inaccuracies in 320-row computed tomography angiography.

Authors:  Yung-Liang Wan; Pei-Kwei Tsay; Chun-Chi Chen; Yu-Hsiang Juan; Yu-Chieh Huang; Wen-Hui Chan; Ming-Shien Wen; I-Chang Hsieh
Journal:  Int J Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2016-04-22       Impact factor: 2.357

4.  CT vs SPECT: CT is the first-line test for the diagnosis and prognosis of stable coronary artery disease.

Authors:  Ahmed Aljizeeri; Myra S Cocker; Benjamin J W Chow
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2013-06       Impact factor: 5.952

Review 5.  Computed tomography coronary angiography - past, present and future.

Authors:  Pei Ing Ngam; Ching Ching Ong; Ping Chai; Siong Sung Wong; Chong Ri Liang; Lynette Li San Teo
Journal:  Singapore Med J       Date:  2020-03       Impact factor: 1.858

6.  Diagnostic performance of computed tomography angiography in the detection of coronary artery in-stent restenosis: evidence from an updated meta-analysis.

Authors:  Tao Dai; Jiang-Rong Wang; Peng-Fei Hu
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2017-11-09       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 7.  Cardiac CT: atherosclerosis to acute coronary syndrome.

Authors:  Ravi Kiran Munnur; James D Cameron; Brian S Ko; Ian T Meredith; Dennis T L Wong
Journal:  Cardiovasc Diagn Ther       Date:  2014-12

8.  Diagnostic Performance of 64- versus 256-Slice Computed Tomography Coronary Angiography Compared with Conventional Coronary Angiography in Patients with Suspected Coronary Artery Disease.

Authors:  Su-Kiat Chua; Huei-Fong Hung; Jun-Jack Cheng; Min-Tsung Tseng; Wai-Yip Law; Chu-Jen Kuo; Chiung-Zuan Chiu; Che-Ming Chang; Shih-Huang Lee; Huey-Ming Lo; Sheng-Chang Lin; Jer-Young Liou; Kou-Gi Shyu
Journal:  Acta Cardiol Sin       Date:  2013-03       Impact factor: 2.672

9.  Dual-source computed tomography angiography and intravascular ultrasound assessment of restenosis in patients after coronary stenting for bifurcation left main stenosis: a pilot study.

Authors:  Josef Veselka; Pavla Cadová; Theodor Adla; David Zemánek
Journal:  Arch Med Sci       Date:  2012-07-04       Impact factor: 3.318

10.  Infant cardiac CT angiography with 64-slice and 256-slice CT: comparison of radiation dose and image quality using a pediatric phantom.

Authors:  Yi-Wei Lee; Ching-Ching Yang; Greta S P Mok; Tung-Hsin Wu
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-11-21       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.