Literature DB >> 22966068

Coronary in-stent restenosis: assessment with CT coronary angiography.

Daniele Andreini1, Gianluca Pontone, Saima Mushtaq, Antonio L Bartorelli, Erika Bertella, Daniela Trabattoni, Piero Montorsi, Stefano Galli, Claudia Foti, Andrea Annoni, Francesca Bovis, Giovanni Ballerini, Piergiuseppe Agostoni, Cesare Fiorentini, Mauro Pepi.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare accuracy and radiation exposure of a new computed tomographic (CT) scanner with improved spatial resolution (scanner A) with those of a CT scanner with standard spatial resolution (scanner B) for evaluation of coronary in-stent restenosis (ISR) by using invasive coronary angiography (ICA) and intravascular ultrasonography (US) as reference methods.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Written informed consent was obtained and study protocol was approved by institutional ethics committee. A total of 180 consecutive patients (154 men [mean age ± standard deviation, 66 years±12; range, 51-79 years] and 36 women [mean age, 70 years±12; range, 55-83 years]) scheduled to undergo ICA for suspected ISR were enrolled. Ninety patients were studied with scanner A (group 1: 72 men [mean age, 65 years±11; range, 52-79], 18 women [mean age, 68 years±12; range, 55-83 years]) and 90 with scanner B (group 2: 74 men [mean age, 64 years±10; range, 51-77 years], 16 women [mean age, 68 years±11; range, 55-82 years). Examination with the two scanners was compared with ICA and intravascular US. Radiation dose exposure was estimated. To compare stent evaluability between the two groups, χ2 test was used.
RESULTS: Stent evaluability was higher in group 1 than in group 2 (99% vs 92%, P=.0021). A significantly lower rate of beam-hardening artifact was observed in group 1 (two cases) than group 2 (12 cases, P<.05). For stent-based analysis, sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of multidetector CT for ISR identification were 96%, 95%, and 96% in group 1 and 90%, 91%, and 91% in group 2, respectively, without statistically significant differences. The correlation between percent ISR evaluated at multidetector CT versus intravascular US was higher in group 1 than in group 2 (r=0.89 vs r=0.58; P=.019). The correlations of diameter and area measurements at reference site and stent maximal lumen narrowing site between multidetector CT and intravascular US were higher in group 1 than in group 2. Radiation dose was low in both multidetector CT groups (1.9 mSv±0.2).
CONCLUSION: Scanner A, with improved spatial resolution, allowed reliable detection and quantification of coronary ISR with low radiation exposure. © RSNA, 2012

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22966068     DOI: 10.1148/radiol.12112363

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  14 in total

1.  Use of intravascular ultrasound vs. optical coherence tomography for mechanism and patterns of in-stent restenosis among bare metal stents and drug eluting stents.

Authors:  Muzina Akhtar; Wei Liu
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2016-01       Impact factor: 2.895

2.  First in vivo head-to-head comparison of high-definition versus standard-definition stent imaging with 64-slice computed tomography.

Authors:  Tobias A Fuchs; Julia Stehli; Michael Fiechter; Svetlana Dougoud; Bert-Ram Sah; Cathérine Gebhard; Sacha Bull; Oliver Gaemperli; Philipp A Kaufmann
Journal:  Int J Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2013-05-01       Impact factor: 2.357

Review 3.  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

4.  Stent evaluation by coronary computed tomography angiography: a comparison between Iopamidol-370 and Ioversol-320 hypo-osmolar iodine concentration contrasts.

Authors:  Annelisa Moura Garcia; Antonildes N Assunção-Jr; Roberto Nery Dantas-Jr; Jose Rodrigues Parga; Fernando Ganem
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2020-08-20       Impact factor: 3.039

5.  Evaluation of collateral channel classification by computed tomography: the feasibility study with reference to invasive coronary angiography.

Authors:  Jiayin Zhang; Nan Xu; Yuehua Li; Minghua Li; Zhigang Lu; Meng Wei
Journal:  Int J Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2015-08-20       Impact factor: 2.357

6.  Prognostic value of multidetector computed tomography coronary angiography in diabetes: excellent long-term prognosis in patients with normal coronary arteries.

Authors:  Daniele Andreini; Gianluca Pontone; Saima Mushtaq; Erika Bertella; Edoardo Conte; Andrea Baggiano; Fabrizio Veglia; Piergiuseppe Agostoni; Andrea Annoni; Alberto Formenti; Piero Montorsi; Giovanni Ballerini; Antonio L Bartorelli; Cesare Fiorentini; Mauro Pepi
Journal:  Diabetes Care       Date:  2013-07       Impact factor: 19.112

7.  Evaluation of CT Angiography Image Quality Acquired with Single-Energy Metal Artifact Reduction (SEMAR) Algorithm in Patients After Complex Endovascular Aortic Repair.

Authors:  M A A D Ragusi; R W van der Meer; R M S Joemai; J van Schaik; C S P van Rijswijk
Journal:  Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol       Date:  2017-10-30       Impact factor: 2.740

8.  Improvement in CT image resolution due to the use of focal spot deflection and increased sampling.

Authors:  Nicholas Rubert; Timothy Szczykutowicz; Frank Ranallo
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2016-05-08       Impact factor: 2.102

9.  Coronary Stent Artifact Reduction with an Edge-Enhancing Reconstruction Kernel - A Prospective Cross-Sectional Study with 256-Slice CT.

Authors:  Stéphanie Tan; Gilles Soulez; Patricia Diez Martinez; Sandra Larrivée; Louis-Mathieu Stevens; Yves Goussard; Samer Mansour; Carl Chartrand-Lefebvre
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-04-29       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Iterative reconstruction improves detection of in-stent restenosis by high-pitch dual-source coronary CT angiography.

Authors:  Junjie Yang; Xiaobo Yang; Carlo N De Cecco; Taylor M Duguay; Zhiye Chen; Christian Tesche; U Joseph Schoepf; Yundai Chen
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2017-07-31       Impact factor: 4.379

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.