
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.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.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).Scanner A, with improved spatial resolution, allowed reliable detection and quantification of coronary ISR with low radiation exposure.
Male, Graft Occlusion, Vascular, Aged; Coronary Angiography; Coronary Restenosis; Female; Graft Occlusion, Vascular; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Radiographic Image Enhancement; Reproducibility of Results; Sensitivity and Specificity; Stents; Tomography, X-Ray Computed; Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging, Reproducibility of Results, Middle Aged, Coronary Angiography, Sensitivity and Specificity, Coronary Restenosis, Radiographic Image Enhancement, multidetector computed-tomography ; diagnostic-accuracy ; vitro evaluation ; image quality ; experience ; sensitivity and specificity ; reproducibility of results ; coronary angiography ; humans ; tomography, X-ray computed ; aged ; coronary restenosis ; graft occlusion, vascular ; radiographic image enhancement ; middle aged ; stents ; female ; male, Humans, Female, Stents, Tomography, X-Ray Computed, Aged
Male, Graft Occlusion, Vascular, Aged; Coronary Angiography; Coronary Restenosis; Female; Graft Occlusion, Vascular; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Radiographic Image Enhancement; Reproducibility of Results; Sensitivity and Specificity; Stents; Tomography, X-Ray Computed; Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging, Reproducibility of Results, Middle Aged, Coronary Angiography, Sensitivity and Specificity, Coronary Restenosis, Radiographic Image Enhancement, multidetector computed-tomography ; diagnostic-accuracy ; vitro evaluation ; image quality ; experience ; sensitivity and specificity ; reproducibility of results ; coronary angiography ; humans ; tomography, X-ray computed ; aged ; coronary restenosis ; graft occlusion, vascular ; radiographic image enhancement ; middle aged ; stents ; female ; male, Humans, Female, Stents, Tomography, X-Ray Computed, Aged
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 51 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Top 10% | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% |
