BACKGROUND: The assessment of coronary stents with present-generation 64-detector row computed tomography scanners that use filtered backprojection and operating at standard definition of 0.5-0.75 mm (standard definition, SDCT) is limited by imaging artifacts and noise. OBJECTIVES: We evaluated the performance of a novel, high-definition 64-slice CT scanner (HDCT), with improved spatial resolution (0.23 mm) and applied statistical iterative reconstruction (ASIR) for evaluation of coronary artery stents. METHODS: HDCT and SDCT stent imaging was performed with the use of an ex vivo phantom. HDCT was compared with SDCT with both smooth and sharp kernels for stent intraluminal diameter, intraluminal area, and image noise. Intrastent visualization was assessed with an ASIR algorithm on HDCT scans, compared with the filtered backprojection algorithms by SDCT. RESULTS: Six coronary stents (2.5, 2.5, 2.75, 3.0, 3.5, 4.0mm) were analyzed by 2 independent readers. Interobserver correlation was high for both HDCT and SDCT. HDCT yielded substantially larger luminal area visualization compared with SDCT, both for smooth (29.4+/-14.5 versus 20.1+/-13.0; P<0.001) and sharp (32.0+/-15.2 versus 25.5+/-12.0; P<0.001) kernels. Stent diameter was higher with HDCT compared with SDCT, for both smooth (1.54+/-0.59 versus1.00+/-0.50; P<0.0001) and detailed (1.47+/-0.65 versus 1.08+/-0.54; P<0.0001) kernels. With detailed kernels, HDCT scans that used algorithms showed a trend toward decreased image noise compared with SDCT-filtered backprojection algorithms. CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of this ex vivo study, HDCT provides superior detection of intrastent luminal area and diameter visualization, compared with SDCT. ASIR image reconstruction techniques for HDCT scans enhance the in-stent assessment while decreasing image noise.
BACKGROUND: The assessment of coronary stents with present-generation 64-detector row computed tomography scanners that use filtered backprojection and operating at standard definition of 0.5-0.75 mm (standard definition, SDCT) is limited by imaging artifacts and noise. OBJECTIVES: We evaluated the performance of a novel, high-definition 64-slice CT scanner (HDCT), with improved spatial resolution (0.23 mm) and applied statistical iterative reconstruction (ASIR) for evaluation of coronary artery stents. METHODS: HDCT and SDCT stent imaging was performed with the use of an ex vivo phantom. HDCT was compared with SDCT with both smooth and sharp kernels for stent intraluminal diameter, intraluminal area, and image noise. Intrastent visualization was assessed with an ASIR algorithm on HDCT scans, compared with the filtered backprojection algorithms by SDCT. RESULTS: Six coronary stents (2.5, 2.5, 2.75, 3.0, 3.5, 4.0mm) were analyzed by 2 independent readers. Interobserver correlation was high for both HDCT and SDCT. HDCT yielded substantially larger luminal area visualization compared with SDCT, both for smooth (29.4+/-14.5 versus 20.1+/-13.0; P<0.001) and sharp (32.0+/-15.2 versus 25.5+/-12.0; P<0.001) kernels. Stent diameter was higher with HDCT compared with SDCT, for both smooth (1.54+/-0.59 versus1.00+/-0.50; P<0.0001) and detailed (1.47+/-0.65 versus 1.08+/-0.54; P<0.0001) kernels. With detailed kernels, HDCT scans that used algorithms showed a trend toward decreased image noise compared with SDCT-filtered backprojection algorithms. CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of this ex vivo study, HDCT provides superior detection of intrastent luminal area and diameter visualization, compared with SDCT. ASIR image reconstruction techniques for HDCT scans enhance the in-stent assessment while decreasing image noise.
Authors: Ullrich Ebersberger; Francesco Tricarico; U Joseph Schoepf; Philipp Blanke; J Reid Spears; Garrett W Rowe; William T Halligan; Thomas Henzler; Fabian Bamberg; Alexander W Leber; Ellen Hoffmann; Paul Apfaltrer Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2012-07-10 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: E Maffei; C Martini; S De Crescenzo; T Arcadi; A Clemente; E Capuano; A Rossi; R Malagò; N Mollet; A Weustink; C Tedeschi; L La Grutta; S Seitun; A Igoren Guaricci; F Cademartiri Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2010-06-23 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: O Honda; M Yanagawa; A Inoue; A Kikuyama; S Yoshida; H Sumikawa; K Tobino; M Koyama; N Tomiyama Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2010-11-16 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Stefanie Mangold; Paola M Cannaó; U Joseph Schoepf; Julian L Wichmann; Christian Canstein; Stephen R Fuller; Giuseppe Muscogiuri; Akos Varga-Szemes; Konstantin Nikolaou; Carlo N De Cecco Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2015-09-15 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Martin J Willemink; Tim Leiner; Pim A de Jong; Linda M de Heer; Rutger A J Nievelstein; Arnold M R Schilham; Ricardo P J Budde Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2013-01-16 Impact factor: 5.315