BACKGROUND: Non-invasive coronary imaging after stent placement remains challenging. Favorable results for dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) derived monoenergetic (MonoE) images have been reported for this purpose. Nowadays, there are different dual-energy techniques available, each with specific advantages and disadvantages. However, for the evaluation of coronaries after stent implantation there is no systematic comparison between different dual-energy techniques. Therefore, the aim of our study was to compare two widely used DECT systems using an in-stent restenosis (ISR) phantom setup. METHODS: Soft-plaque-like stenoses (~50% of lumen) were inserted into ten coronary stents embedded in contrast-filled vessel phantoms. A dual-source CT (DSCT) and a dual-layer CT (DLCT) with comparable acquisition and reconstruction parameters were used. Conventional polyenergetic (PolyE) and MonoE images with 9 different levels (40-120 keV) were calculated. ISR assessability was evaluated by subjective scoring using a 5-point scale and by the following quantitative parameters: image noise, visible lumen diameter (VLD) and ISR contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR). RESULTS: A non-significant trend towards larger VLD in DLCT images was observed. Highest noise was found in low-keV MonoE with significantly higher values for DSCT than for DLCT. Conversely, noise was significantly lower for DSCT at higher-keV MonoE. Peak ISR CNR values were found at low-keV MonoE with no significant difference between both systems. However, for PolyE and mid-energy MonoE, CNRs were significantly higher for DSCT. Subjective image quality was significantly better for PolyE and low-keV MonoE than for high-keV MonoE, also without significant difference between both systems. CONCLUSIONS: Conspicuity of ISR benefits from DECT. Peak CNRs were comparable for both DECT systems and low-keV MonoE offered the highest CNR values and best subjective image quality. In contrast, high-keV MonoE cannot be recommended for stent evaluation due to poor CNR values and therefore significantly limited visualization of stenoses. 2020 Quantitative Imaging in Medicine and Surgery. All rights reserved.
BACKGROUND: Non-invasive coronary imaging after stent placement remains challenging. Favorable results for dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) derived monoenergetic (MonoE) images have been reported for this purpose. Nowadays, there are different dual-energy techniques available, each with specific advantages and disadvantages. However, for the evaluation of coronaries after stent implantation there is no systematic comparison between different dual-energy techniques. Therefore, the aim of our study was to compare two widely used DECT systems using an in-stent restenosis (ISR) phantom setup. METHODS: Soft-plaque-like stenoses (~50% of lumen) were inserted into ten coronary stents embedded in contrast-filled vessel phantoms. A dual-source CT (DSCT) and a dual-layer CT (DLCT) with comparable acquisition and reconstruction parameters were used. Conventional polyenergetic (PolyE) and MonoE images with 9 different levels (40-120 keV) were calculated. ISR assessability was evaluated by subjective scoring using a 5-point scale and by the following quantitative parameters: image noise, visible lumen diameter (VLD) and ISR contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR). RESULTS: A non-significant trend towards larger VLD in DLCT images was observed. Highest noise was found in low-keV MonoE with significantly higher values for DSCT than for DLCT. Conversely, noise was significantly lower for DSCT at higher-keV MonoE. Peak ISR CNR values were found at low-keV MonoE with no significant difference between both systems. However, for PolyE and mid-energy MonoE, CNRs were significantly higher for DSCT. Subjective image quality was significantly better for PolyE and low-keV MonoE than for high-keV MonoE, also without significant difference between both systems. CONCLUSIONS: Conspicuity of ISR benefits from DECT. Peak CNRs were comparable for both DECT systems and low-keV MonoE offered the highest CNR values and best subjective image quality. In contrast, high-keV MonoE cannot be recommended for stent evaluation due to poor CNR values and therefore significantly limited visualization of stenoses. 2020 Quantitative Imaging in Medicine and Surgery. All rights reserved.
Authors: Lifeng Yu; Jodie A Christner; Shuai Leng; Jia Wang; Joel G Fletcher; Cynthia H McCollough Journal: Med Phys Date: 2011-12 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Stefanie Mangold; Paola M Cannaó; U Joseph Schoepf; Julian L Wichmann; Christian Canstein; Stephen R Fuller; Giuseppe Muscogiuri; Akos Varga-Szemes; Konstantin Nikolaou; Carlo N De Cecco Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2015-09-15 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Harald Seifarth; Murat Ozgün; Rainer Raupach; Thomas Flohr; Walter Heindel; Roman Fischbach; David Maintz Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2006-01 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Stephen Schroeder; Stephan Achenbach; Frank Bengel; Christof Burgstahler; Filippo Cademartiri; Pim de Feyter; Richard George; Philipp Kaufmann; Andreas F Kopp; Juhani Knuuti; Dieter Ropers; Joanne Schuijf; Laurens F Tops; Jeroen J Bax Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2007-12-15 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Maximilian Galonska; Franziska Ducke; Tereza Kertesz-Zborilova; Rudolf Meyer; Hans Guski; Friedrich D Knollmann Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2008-02 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Jonas Doerner; Myriam Hauger; Tilman Hickethier; Jonathan Byrtus; Christian Wybranski; Nils Große Hokamp; David Maintz; Stefan Haneder Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2017-05-20 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: Kai Roman Laukamp; Simon Lennartz; Victor-Frederic Neuhaus; Nils Große Hokamp; Robert Rau; Markus Le Blanc; Nuran Abdullayev; Anastasios Mpotsaris; David Maintz; Jan Borggrefe Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2018-05-03 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Bo Lagerqvist; Stefan K James; Ulf Stenestrand; Johan Lindbäck; Tage Nilsson; Lars Wallentin Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2007-02-12 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Mathias Meyer; Holger Haubenreisser; U Joseph Schoepf; Rozemarijn Vliegenthart; Christianne Leidecker; Thomas Allmendinger; Ralf Lehmann; Sonja Sudarski; Martin Borggrefe; Stefan O Schoenberg; Thomas Henzler Journal: Radiology Date: 2014-05-31 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Joachim Eckert; Marco Schmidt; Annett Magedanz; Thomas Voigtländer; Axel Schmermund Journal: Int J Mol Sci Date: 2015-02-09 Impact factor: 5.923
Authors: C Zaeske; T Hickethier; J Borggrefe; L Goertz; R Dettmeyer; M Schlamann; N Abdullayev; C Kabbasch Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2020-12-31 Impact factor: 3.825