Literature DB >> 34498007

Ultra-High-Resolution Coronary CT Angiography for Assessment of Patients with Severe Coronary Artery Calcification: Initial Experience.

Jacqueline Latina1, Mahsima Shabani1, Karan Kapoor1, Seamus P Whelton1, Jeffrey C Trost1, Jaclyn Sesso1, Shadpour Demehri1, Mahadevappa Mahesh1, João A C Lima1, Armin Arbab-Zadeh1.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Conventional CT technology yields only modest accuracy of coronary artery stenosis assessment in severely calcified lesions. Reported herein are this study's initial observations on the potential of ultra-high-resolution CT (UHR-CT) for evaluating severely calcified coronary arterial lesions.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifteen patients 45 years of age or older, with history of coronary artery disease, referred for invasive coronary angiography, were prospectively enrolled. Patients underwent UHR-CT within 30 days prior to cardiac catheterization. Image noise levels and diagnostic confidence (level 1-5) using UHR-CT were compared with reconstructed images simulating conventional CT technology. Stenosis assessment for the major coronary arteries and the left main coronary artery with UHR-CT and invasive angiography were compared. Results from clinically driven coronary CT using conventional technology were considered for comparison when available.
RESULTS: Mean patient age was 67 years (range, 53-79 years). Thirteen patients were men, nine had obesity. Radiation dose was 9.3 mSv owing to expanded x-ray exposure to accommodate research software application (70%-99% of R-R cycle). Overall image noise was considerably greater for UHR-CT (50.9 ± 7.8 [standard deviation]) versus conventional CT image reconstruction (19.5 ± 8.3, P < .01), yet diagnostic confidence scores for UHR-CT were high (4.3 ± 0.9). Average calcium score in patients without stents (n = 6) was 1205, and of 86 vessels evaluated, 22 had 70% or greater stenosis depicted with invasive angiography (26%). Stenosis comparison with invasive angiography yielded 86% (19 of 22) sensitivity and 88% (56 of 64) specificity (95% CI: 65%, 97%; and 77%, 95%, respectively).
CONCLUSION: Initial observations suggest UHR-CT may be effective in overcoming the limitation of conventional CT for accurately evaluating coronary artery stenoses in severely calcified vessels.Keywords: CT-Angiography, Coronary Arteries, ArteriosclerosisClinical trial registration no. NCT04272060See also commentary by Shanbhag and Chen in this issue.© RSNA, 2021. 2021 by the Radiological Society of North America, Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Arteriosclerosis; CT-Angiography; Coronary Arteries

Year:  2021        PMID: 34498007      PMCID: PMC8415143          DOI: 10.1148/ryct.2021210053

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiol Cardiothorac Imaging        ISSN: 2638-6135


  15 in total

1.  The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP publication 103.

Authors: 
Journal:  Ann ICRP       Date:  2007

2.  Quantification of coronary artery calcium using ultrafast computed tomography.

Authors:  A S Agatston; W R Janowitz; F J Hildner; N R Zusmer; M Viamonte; R Detrano
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  1990-03-15       Impact factor: 24.094

Review 3.  National Institute for Health and Care Excellence updates the stable chest pain guideline with radical changes to the diagnostic paradigm.

Authors:  Adam Timmis; Carl A Roobottom
Journal:  Heart       Date:  2017-04-26       Impact factor: 5.994

4.  Contemporary Discrepancies of Stenosis Assessment by Computed Tomography and Invasive Coronary Angiography.

Authors:  Young Bin Song; Armin Arbab-Zadeh; Matthew B Matheson; Mohammad R Ostovaneh; Andrea L Vavere; Marc Dewey; Carlos Rochitte; Hiroyuki Niinuma; Roger Laham; Joanne D Schuijf; Christopher Cox; Jeffrey Brinker; Marcelo di Carli; João A C Lima; Julie M Miller
Journal:  Circ Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2019-02       Impact factor: 7.792

5.  Cardiac-Specific Conversion Factors to Estimate Radiation Effective Dose From Dose-Length Product in Computed Tomography.

Authors:  Sigal Trattner; Sandra Halliburton; Carla M Thompson; Yanping Xu; Anjali Chelliah; Sachin R Jambawalikar; Boyu Peng; M Robert Peters; Jill E Jacobs; Munir Ghesani; James J Jang; Hussein Al-Khalidi; Andrew J Einstein
Journal:  JACC Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2017-08-16

6.  Diagnostic performance of coronary CT angiography with ultra-high-resolution CT: Comparison with invasive coronary angiography.

Authors:  Hidenobu Takagi; Ryoichi Tanaka; Kyohei Nagata; Ryo Ninomiya; Kazumasa Arakita; Joanne D Schuijf; Kunihiro Yoshioka
Journal:  Eur J Radiol       Date:  2018-02-01       Impact factor: 3.528

7.  Assessment of in-stent restenosis using 64-MDCT: analysis of the CORE-64 Multicenter International Trial.

Authors:  Joanna J Wykrzykowska; Armin Arbab-Zadeh; Gustavo Godoy; Julie M Miller; Shezhang Lin; Andrea Vavere; Narinder Paul; Hiroyuki Niinuma; John Hoe; Jeffrey Brinker; Faisal Khosa; Sheryar Sarwar; Joao Lima; Melvin E Clouse
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 3.959

8.  Coronary CT Angiography and 5-Year Risk of Myocardial Infarction.

Authors:  David E Newby; Philip D Adamson; Colin Berry; Nicholas A Boon; Marc R Dweck; Marcus Flather; John Forbes; Amanda Hunter; Stephanie Lewis; Scott MacLean; Nicholas L Mills; John Norrie; Giles Roditi; Anoop S V Shah; Adam D Timmis; Edwin J R van Beek; Michelle C Williams
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2018-08-25       Impact factor: 91.245

9.  Ultra-High-Resolution Computed Tomography Angiography for Assessment of Coronary Artery Stenosis.

Authors:  Sadako Motoyama; Hajime Ito; Masayoshi Sarai; Yasuomi Nagahara; Keiichi Miyajima; Ryota Matsumoto; Yujiro Doi; Yumi Kataoka; Hiroshi Takahashi; Yukio Ozaki; Hiroshi Toyama; Kazuhiro Katada
Journal:  Circ J       Date:  2018-05-09       Impact factor: 2.993

10.  Physical evaluation of an ultra-high-resolution CT scanner.

Authors:  Luuk J Oostveen; Kirsten L Boedeker; Monique Brink; Mathias Prokop; Frank de Lange; Ioannis Sechopoulos
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2020-02-10       Impact factor: 5.315

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.