PURPOSE: To explore the optimal contrast material (CM) concentration for distinguishing CM, carotid stent (CS), and neck components in cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) during carotid angiography (CBCT-CA). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A neck phantom containing CS and contrast-filled imitation vessels of 9 mm diameter was scanned using CBCT. CM (300 mgI/ml) was used in concentrations of 100, 50, 33, 10, 5, and 1%. In a clinical study, 30 patients with a CS (Precise or Wallstent) underwent CBCT-CA with CM injected at a rate of 3 ml/s and a concentration of 10 or 20%. RESULTS: In the basic study, CBCTA using 5% CM enabled clear distinction among the three components under windowing at 1500 width and 300 center, and showed the exact diameter of the imitation vessel. Pixel values of CM inside the Precise and the Wallstent were 622.2 ± 32.9 (mean ± SD) and 746.0 ± 27.9, respectively. In the clinical study using CM at concentrations of 10 and 20%, pixel values of CM inside the Wallstent were 632.3 ± 69.2 and 1024.5 ± 99.0, respectively. CONCLUSION: Optimal CM concentration for distinguishing among the three components was 5% in the basic study; the optimal concentration was 10% in the clinical study.
PURPOSE: To explore the optimal contrast material (CM) concentration for distinguishing CM, carotid stent (CS), and neck components in cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) during carotid angiography (CBCT-CA). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A neck phantom containing CS and contrast-filled imitation vessels of 9 mm diameter was scanned using CBCT. CM (300 mgI/ml) was used in concentrations of 100, 50, 33, 10, 5, and 1%. In a clinical study, 30 patients with a CS (Precise or Wallstent) underwent CBCT-CA with CM injected at a rate of 3 ml/s and a concentration of 10 or 20%. RESULTS: In the basic study, CBCTA using 5% CM enabled clear distinction among the three components under windowing at 1500 width and 300 center, and showed the exact diameter of the imitation vessel. Pixel values of CM inside the Precise and the Wallstent were 622.2 ± 32.9 (mean ± SD) and 746.0 ± 27.9, respectively. In the clinical study using CM at concentrations of 10 and 20%, pixel values of CM inside the Wallstent were 632.3 ± 69.2 and 1024.5 ± 99.0, respectively. CONCLUSION: Optimal CM concentration for distinguishing among the three components was 5% in the basic study; the optimal concentration was 10% in the clinical study.
Authors: Thomas G Brott; Robert W Hobson; George Howard; Gary S Roubin; Wayne M Clark; William Brooks; Ariane Mackey; Michael D Hill; Pierre P Leimgruber; Alice J Sheffet; Virginia J Howard; Wesley S Moore; Jenifer H Voeks; L Nelson Hopkins; Donald E Cutlip; David J Cohen; Jeffrey J Popma; Robert D Ferguson; Stanley N Cohen; Joseph L Blackshear; Frank L Silver; J P Mohr; Brajesh K Lal; James F Meschia Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2010-05-26 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Rebecca Fahrig; Robert Dixon; Thomas Payne; Richard L Morin; Arundhuti Ganguly; Norbert Strobel Journal: Med Phys Date: 2006-12 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Götz Benndorf; Charles M Strother; Benjamin Claus; Ramin Naeini; Hesham Morsi; Richard Klucznik; Michael E Mawad Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2005-08 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Sumeet Virmani; Robert K Ryu; Kent T Sato; Robert J Lewandowski; Laura Kulik; Mary F Mulcahy; Andrew C Larson; Riad Salem; Reed A Omary Journal: J Vasc Interv Radiol Date: 2007-10 Impact factor: 3.464
Authors: Bernhard Christian Meyer; Bernd Benedikt Frericks; Thomas Albrecht; Karl-Jürgen Wolf; Frank Klaus Wacker Journal: Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol Date: 2007 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 2.740