OBJECTIVE: In this study, we evaluated the utility of 16-slice MDCT (multidetector computed tomography) to assess stent patency after coronary artery stenting. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective ECG-gated CT-angiography using 16-slice MDCT was performed in 52 consecutive patients with coronary artery stents. Qualitative assessment of 61 coronary stent lumens by MDCT is reported, and the reasons preventing assessment were investigated. RESULTS: All non-assessable stents were non-assessable due to partial volume effects and metal artifacts. To evaluate instent restenosis, conventional coronary angiography was performed on the 54 assessable stents in 48 patients, and the results were compared with the MDCT results. Based on the results of the conventional coronary angiography, MDCT correctly detected four in-stent restenosis. CONCLUSION: Despite some limitations, 16-slice MDCT provides sufficient evaluations of some coronary stents, and can detect in-stent restenosis with high accuracy.
OBJECTIVE: In this study, we evaluated the utility of 16-slice MDCT (multidetector computed tomography) to assess stent patency after coronary artery stenting. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective ECG-gated CT-angiography using 16-slice MDCT was performed in 52 consecutive patients with coronary artery stents. Qualitative assessment of 61 coronary stent lumens by MDCT is reported, and the reasons preventing assessment were investigated. RESULTS: All non-assessable stents were non-assessable due to partial volume effects and metal artifacts. To evaluate instent restenosis, conventional coronary angiography was performed on the 54 assessable stents in 48 patients, and the results were compared with the MDCT results. Based on the results of the conventional coronary angiography, MDCT correctly detected four in-stent restenosis. CONCLUSION: Despite some limitations, 16-slice MDCT provides sufficient evaluations of some coronary stents, and can detect in-stent restenosis with high accuracy.
Authors: Harald Seifarth; Rainer Raupach; Stefan Schaller; Eva Maria Fallenberg; Thomas Flohr; Walter Heindel; Roman Fischbach; David Maintz Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2005-02-12 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: F Cademartiri; R Marano; G Runza; N Mollet; K Nieman; G Luccichenti; M Gualerzi; L Brambilla; P Coruzzi; M Galia; M Midiri Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2005 May-Jun Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: Joanne D Schuijf; Jeroen J Bax; J Wouter Jukema; Hildo J Lamb; Hazem M A Warda; Hubert W Vliegen; Albert de Roos; Ernst E van der Wall Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2004-08-15 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Stephen Schroeder; Axel Kuettner; Andreas F Kopp; Martin Heuschmidt; Christof Burgstahler; Christian Herdeg; Claus D Claussen Journal: Int J Cardiol Date: 2003-12 Impact factor: 4.164
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