OBJECTIVE: Evaluations of stents by MDCT from studies performed at single centers have yielded variable results with a high proportion of unassessable stents. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of 64-MDCT angiography (MDCTA) in identifying in-stent restenosis in a multicenter trial. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Coronary Evaluation Using Multidetector Spiral Computed Tomography Angiography Using 64 Detectors (CORE-64) Multicenter Trial and Registry evaluated the accuracy of 64-MDCTA in assessing 405 patients referred for coronary angiography. A total of 75 stents in 52 patients were assessed: 48 of 75 stents (64%) in 36 of 52 patients (69%) could be evaluated. The prevalence of in-stent restenosis by quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) in this subgroup was 23% (17/75). Eighty percent of the stents were <or=3.0 mm in diameter. RESULTS: The overall sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value to detect 50% in-stent stenosis visually using MDCT compared with QCA was 33.3%, 91.7%, 57.1%, and 80.5%, respectively, with an overall accuracy of 77.1% for the 48 assessable stents. The ability to evaluate stents on MDCTA varied by stent type: Thick-strut stents such as Bx Velocity were assessable in 50% of the cases; Cypher, 62.5% of the cases; and thinner-strut stents such as Taxus, 75% of the cases. We performed quantitative assessment of in-stent contrast attenuation in Hounsfield units and correlated that value with the quantitative percentage of stenosis by QCA. The correlation coefficient between the average attenuation decrease and >or=50% stenosis by QCA was 0.25 (p=0.073). Quantitative assessment failed to improve the accuracy of MDCT over qualitative assessment. CONCLUSION: The results of our study showed that 64-MDCT has poor ability to detect in-stent restenosis in small-diameter stents. Evaluability and negative predictive value were better in large-diameter stents. Thus, 64-MDCT may be appropriate for stent assessment in only selected patients.
OBJECTIVE: Evaluations of stents by MDCT from studies performed at single centers have yielded variable results with a high proportion of unassessable stents. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of 64-MDCT angiography (MDCTA) in identifying in-stent restenosis in a multicenter trial. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Coronary Evaluation Using Multidetector Spiral Computed Tomography Angiography Using 64 Detectors (CORE-64) Multicenter Trial and Registry evaluated the accuracy of 64-MDCTA in assessing 405 patients referred for coronary angiography. A total of 75 stents in 52 patients were assessed: 48 of 75 stents (64%) in 36 of 52 patients (69%) could be evaluated. The prevalence of in-stent restenosis by quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) in this subgroup was 23% (17/75). Eighty percent of the stents were <or=3.0 mm in diameter. RESULTS: The overall sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value to detect 50% in-stent stenosis visually using MDCT compared with QCA was 33.3%, 91.7%, 57.1%, and 80.5%, respectively, with an overall accuracy of 77.1% for the 48 assessable stents. The ability to evaluate stents on MDCTA varied by stent type: Thick-strut stents such as Bx Velocity were assessable in 50% of the cases; Cypher, 62.5% of the cases; and thinner-strut stents such as Taxus, 75% of the cases. We performed quantitative assessment of in-stent contrast attenuation in Hounsfield units and correlated that value with the quantitative percentage of stenosis by QCA. The correlation coefficient between the average attenuation decrease and >or=50% stenosis by QCA was 0.25 (p=0.073). Quantitative assessment failed to improve the accuracy of MDCT over qualitative assessment. CONCLUSION: The results of our study showed that 64-MDCT has poor ability to detect in-stent restenosis in small-diameter stents. Evaluability and negative predictive value were better in large-diameter stents. Thus, 64-MDCT may be appropriate for stent assessment in only selected patients.
Authors: Nirat Beohar; Joel D Robbins; Brendan J Cavanaugh; Asimul H Ansari; Vahid Yaghmai; James Carr; Charles J Davidson Journal: Catheter Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2006-07 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Georg Mühlenbruch; Andreas H Mahnken; Marco Das; Rüdiger Blindt; Christian Hohl; Joachim E Wildberger; Rolf W Günther; Harald P Kühl; Ralf Koos Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2007-02 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Johannes Rixe; Stephan Achenbach; Dieter Ropers; Ulrich Baum; Axel Kuettner; Ulrike Ropers; Werner Bautz; Werner G Daniel; Katharina Anders Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2006-10-11 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Carlos A G Van Mieghem; Filippo Cademartiri; Nico R Mollet; Patrizia Malagutti; Marco Valgimigli; Willem B Meijboom; Francesca Pugliese; Eugene P McFadden; Jurgen Ligthart; Giuseppe Runza; Nico Bruining; Pieter C Smits; Evelyn Regar; Willem J van der Giessen; Georgios Sianos; Ron van Domburg; Peter de Jaegere; Gabriel P Krestin; Patrick W Serruys; Pim J de Feyter Journal: Circulation Date: 2006-08-07 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: I Ringqvist; L D Fisher; M Mock; K B Davis; H Wedel; B R Chaitman; E Passamani; R O Russell; E L Alderman; N T Kouchoukas; G C Kaiser; T J Ryan; T Killip; D Fray Journal: J Clin Invest Date: 1983-06 Impact factor: 14.808
Authors: Atasu K Nayak; Akio Kawamura; Richard W Nesto; Gershan Davis; Jennifer Jarbeau; Christopher T Pyne; David E Gossman; Thomas C Piemonte; Nabila Riskalla; Manish S Chauhan Journal: Circ J Date: 2006-08 Impact factor: 2.993
Authors: Axel Kuettner; Torsten Beck; Tanja Drosch; Klaus Kettering; Martin Heuschmid; Christof Burgstahler; Claus D Claussen; Andreas F Kopp; Stephen Schroeder Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2005-01-04 Impact factor: 24.094
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: Wen Jie Yang; Ke Min Chen; Li Fang Pang; Ying Guo; Jian Ying Li; Huang Zhang; Zi Lai Pan Journal: Korean J Radiol Date: 2011-12-23 Impact factor: 3.500