Literature DB >> 29934669

Neointimal formation after carotid artery stenting: phantom and clinical evaluation of model-based iterative reconstruction (MBIR).

Kazushi Yokomachi1,2, Fuminari Tatsugami3, Toru Higaki3, Shinji Kume4, Shigeyuki Sakamoto5, Takahito Okazaki5, Kaoru Kurisu5, Yuko Nakamura3, Yasutaka Baba3, Makoto Iida3, Kazuo Awai3.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to investigate the usefulness of model-based iterative reconstruction (IR) for detecting neointimal formations after carotid artery stenting.
METHODS: In a cervical phantom harbouring carotid artery stents, we placed simulated neointimal formations measuring 0.40, 0.60, 0.80 and 1.00 mm along the stent wall. The thickness of in-stent neointimal formations was measured on images reconstructed with filtered-back projection (FBP), hybrid IR (AIDR 3D), and model-based IR (FIRST). The clinical study included 43 patients with carotid stents. Cervical computed tomography (CT) images obtained on a 320-slice scanner were reconstructed with AIDR 3D and FIRST. Five blinded observers visually graded the likelihood of neointimal formations on AIDR 3D and AIDR 3D plus FIRST images. Carotid ultrasound images were the reference standard. We analysed results of visual grading by using a Jack-knife type receiver observer characteristics analysis software.
RESULTS: In the phantom study, the difference between the measured and the true diameter of the neointimal formations was smaller on FIRST than FBP or AIDR 3D images. In the clinical study, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and accuracy of AIDR 3D were 58%, 88%, 83%, 67% and 73%, respectively. For AIDR 3D plus FIRST images they were 84%, 78%, 80%, 82% and 81%, respectively. The mean area under the curve was significantly higher on AIDR 3D plus FIRST than AIDR 3D images (0.82 vs 0.72; p < 0.01).
CONCLUSIONS: The model-based IR algorithm helped to improve diagnostic performance for the detection of neointimal formations after carotid artery stenting. KEY POINTS: • Neointimal formations can be visualised more accurately with model-based IR. • Model-based IR improves the detection of neointimal formations after carotid artery stenting. • Model-based IR is suitable for follow up after carotid artery stenting.

Entities:  

Keywords:  CT angiography; Carotid artery stenosis; Image quality enhancement; Image reconstruction; Multidetector computed tomography

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29934669     DOI: 10.1007/s00330-018-5598-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Radiol        ISSN: 0938-7994            Impact factor:   5.315


  18 in total

Review 1.  New iterative reconstruction techniques for cardiovascular computed tomography: how do they work, and what are the advantages and disadvantages?

Authors:  Rendon C Nelson; Sebastian Feuerlein; Daniel T Boll
Journal:  J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr       Date:  2011-07-23

2.  Coronary Artery Stent Evaluation with Model-based Iterative Reconstruction at Coronary CT Angiography.

Authors:  Fuminari Tatsugami; Toru Higaki; Hiroaki Sakane; Wataru Fukumoto; Yoko Kaichi; Makoto Iida; Yasutaka Baba; Masao Kiguchi; Yasuki Kihara; So Tsushima; Kazuo Awai
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2017-02-14       Impact factor: 3.173

3.  Lung cancer screening with ultra-low dose CT using full iterative reconstruction.

Authors:  Masayo Fujita; Toru Higaki; Yoshikazu Awaya; Toshio Nakanishi; Yuko Nakamura; Fuminari Tatsugami; Yasutaka Baba; Makoto Iida; Kazuo Awai
Journal:  Jpn J Radiol       Date:  2017-02-14       Impact factor: 2.374

4.  AdaptiveIterative Dose Reduction in coronary CT angiography using 320-row CT: assessment of radiation dose reduction and image quality.

Authors:  Nobuo Tomizawa; Takeshi Nojo; Masaaki Akahane; Rumiko Torigoe; Shigeru Kiryu; Kuni Ohtomo
Journal:  J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr       Date:  2012-08-16

5.  Restenosis is more frequent after carotid stenting than after endarterectomy: the EVA-3S study.

Authors:  Caroline Arquizan; Ludovic Trinquart; Pierre-Jean Touboul; Anne Long; Séverine Feasson; Béatrice Terriat; Marie-Pierre Gobin-Metteil; Brigitte Guidolin; Serge Cohen; Jean-Louis Mas
Journal:  Stroke       Date:  2011-02-10       Impact factor: 7.914

6.  Safety of stenting and endarterectomy by symptomatic status in the Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy Versus Stenting Trial (CREST).

Authors:  Frank L Silver; Ariane Mackey; Wayne M Clark; William Brooks; Carlos H Timaran; David Chiu; Larry B Goldstein; James F Meschia; Robert D Ferguson; Wesley S Moore; George Howard; Thomas G Brott
Journal:  Stroke       Date:  2011-02-09       Impact factor: 7.914

7.  Protected carotid-artery stenting versus endarterectomy in high-risk patients.

Authors:  Jay S Yadav; Mark H Wholey; Richard E Kuntz; Pierre Fayad; Barry T Katzen; Gregory J Mishkel; Tanvir K Bajwa; Patrick Whitlow; Neil E Strickman; Michael R Jaff; Jeffrey J Popma; David B Snead; Donald E Cutlip; Brian G Firth; Kenneth Ouriel
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2004-10-07       Impact factor: 91.245

8.  Endarterectomy for asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis. Executive Committee for the Asymptomatic Carotid Atherosclerosis Study.

Authors: 
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1995-05-10       Impact factor: 56.272

9.  Long-term outcomes after stenting versus endarterectomy for treatment of symptomatic carotid stenosis: the International Carotid Stenting Study (ICSS) randomised trial.

Authors:  Leo H Bonati; Joanna Dobson; Roland L Featherstone; Jörg Ederle; H Bart van der Worp; Gert J de Borst; Willem P Th M Mali; Jonathan D Beard; Trevor Cleveland; Stefan T Engelter; Philippe A Lyrer; Gary A Ford; Paul J Dorman; Martin M Brown
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2014-10-14       Impact factor: 79.321

10.  Long-term risk of carotid restenosis in patients randomly assigned to endovascular treatment or endarterectomy in the Carotid and Vertebral Artery Transluminal Angioplasty Study (CAVATAS): long-term follow-up of a randomised trial.

Authors:  Leo H Bonati; Jörg Ederle; Dominick J H McCabe; Joanna Dobson; Roland L Featherstone; Peter A Gaines; Jonathan D Beard; Graham S Venables; Hugh S Markus; Andrew Clifton; Peter Sandercock; Martin M Brown
Journal:  Lancet Neurol       Date:  2009-08-28       Impact factor: 44.182

View more
  3 in total

1.  Deep learning-based image restoration algorithm for coronary CT angiography.

Authors:  Fuminari Tatsugami; Toru Higaki; Yuko Nakamura; Zhou Yu; Jian Zhou; Yujie Lu; Chikako Fujioka; Toshiro Kitagawa; Yasuki Kihara; Makoto Iida; Kazuo Awai
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2019-04-08       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  Deep Learning-Based Reconstruction vs. Iterative Reconstruction for Quality of Low-Dose Head-and-Neck CT Angiography with Different Tube-Voltage Protocols in Emergency-Department Patients.

Authors:  Marc Lenfant; Pierre-Olivier Comby; Kevin Guillen; Felix Galissot; Karim Haioun; Anthony Thay; Olivier Chevallier; Frédéric Ricolfi; Romaric Loffroy
Journal:  Diagnostics (Basel)       Date:  2022-05-21

3.  Accuracy of thin-slice model-based iterative reconstruction designed for brain CT to diagnose acute ischemic stroke in the middle cerebral artery territory: a multicenter study.

Authors:  Hidenori Mitani; Fuminari Tatsugami; Toru Higaki; Yoko Kaichi; Yuko Nakamura; Ewoud Smit; Mathias Prokop; Chiaki Ono; Ken Ono; Yukunori Korogi; Kazuo Awai
Journal:  Neuroradiology       Date:  2021-06-30       Impact factor: 2.804

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.