W-J Yang1, Z-L Pan, H Zhang, L-F Pang, Y Guo, K-M Chen. 1. Department of Radiology, Rui Jin Hospital, Medical School, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, No. 197, Rui Jin Er Road, Shanghai, 200025, China.
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study compared the performance of prospectively electrocardiographically (ECG)-triggered axial computed tomography (CT) angiography with retrospective technique in evaluating coronary artery stent restenosis by 64-slice CT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A pulsing cardiac phantom with artificial coronary artery in-stent restenosis was examined by CT angiography with different types of scan modes. The visibility of in-stent restenosis was evaluated with a three-point score. Artificial lumen narrowing [(inner stent diameter-measured lumen diameter)/inner stent diameter], lumen attenuation increase ratio [(in-stent attenuation-coronary artery lumen attenuation)/coronary artery lumen attenuation], measurement error of restenosis percent [(known restenosis percent-measured restenosis percent)/known restenosis percent] and imaging noise were analysed. RESULTS: Prospective acquisition showed better visibility than retrospective acquisition (p<0.05): 61% of in-stent restenoses had good visibility on the prospective acquisition compared with 17% on the retrospective acquisition. Furthermore, the effective dose was 6.2 ± 0.3 mSv for the prospective technique compared with 18.8 ± 1.1 mSv for the retrospective technique. Artificial lumen narrowing (mean 40%), lumen attenuation increase ratio (mean 33%) and measurement error of restenosis percent were not different between types of CT acquisitions. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with the traditional retrospective technique, prospective coronary CT angiography offers improved image quality and reduces effective radiation dose in evaluating in-stent restenosis.
PURPOSE: This study compared the performance of prospectively electrocardiographically (ECG)-triggered axial computed tomography (CT) angiography with retrospective technique in evaluating coronary artery stent restenosis by 64-slice CT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A pulsing cardiac phantom with artificial coronary artery in-stent restenosis was examined by CT angiography with different types of scan modes. The visibility of in-stent restenosis was evaluated with a three-point score. Artificial lumen narrowing [(inner stent diameter-measured lumen diameter)/inner stent diameter], lumen attenuation increase ratio [(in-stent attenuation-coronary artery lumen attenuation)/coronary artery lumen attenuation], measurement error of restenosis percent [(known restenosis percent-measured restenosis percent)/known restenosis percent] and imaging noise were analysed. RESULTS: Prospective acquisition showed better visibility than retrospective acquisition (p<0.05): 61% of in-stent restenoses had good visibility on the prospective acquisition compared with 17% on the retrospective acquisition. Furthermore, the effective dose was 6.2 ± 0.3 mSv for the prospective technique compared with 18.8 ± 1.1 mSv for the retrospective technique. Artificial lumen narrowing (mean 40%), lumen attenuation increase ratio (mean 33%) and measurement error of restenosis percent were not different between types of CT acquisitions. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with the traditional retrospective technique, prospective coronary CT angiography offers improved image quality and reduces effective radiation dose in evaluating in-stent restenosis.
Authors: James P Earls; Elise L Berman; Bruce A Urban; Charlene A Curry; Judith L Lane; Robert S Jennings; Colin C McCulloch; Jiang Hsieh; John H Londt Journal: Radiology Date: 2008-01-14 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Ammar Sarwar; Johannes Rieber; Eline A Q Mooyaart; Sujith K Seneviratne; Stuart L Houser; Fabian Bamberg; O Christopher Raffel; Rajiv Gupta; Mannudeep K Kalra; Homer Pien; Hang Lee; Thomas J Brady; Udo Hoffmann Journal: Radiology Date: 2008-08-18 Impact factor: 11.105
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: E Maffei; A Palumbo; C Martini; W Meijboom; C Tedeschi; P Spagnolo; A Zuccarelli; A Weustink; T Torri; N Mollet; S Seitun; G P Krestin; F Cademartiri Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2009-12-16 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: Sigurdis Haraldsdottir; Thorarinn Gudnason; Axel F Sigurdsson; Jonina Gudjonsdottir; Sam J Lehman; Kristjan Eyjolfsson; Sigurpall S Scheving; C Michael Gibson; Udo Hoffmann; Birna Jonsdottir; Karl Andersen Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2009-06-30 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: D L Fischman; M B Leon; D S Baim; R A Schatz; M P Savage; I Penn; K Detre; L Veltri; D Ricci; M Nobuyoshi Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1994-08-25 Impact factor: 91.245
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: Young Joo Suh; Young Jin Kim; Yoo Jin Hong; Hye-Jeong Lee; Jin Hur; Sae Rom Hong; Dong Jin Im; Yun Jung Kim; Byoung Wook Choi Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2015-12-01 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Ji Won Lee; Chang Won Kim; Han Cheol Lee; Ming-Ting Wu; Lee Hwangbo; Ki Seok Choo; June Hong Kim; Ki-Nam Lee; Jin You Kim; Yeon Joo Jeong Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2015-05-29 Impact factor: 2.357
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
Authors: Petr Symersky; Jesse Habets; Paul Westers; Bas A J M de Mol; Mathias Prokop; Ricardo P J Budde Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2011-12-30 Impact factor: 5.315