First in vivo head-to-head comparison of high-definition versus standard-definition stent imaging with 64-slice computed tomography

The aim of this study was to compare image quality characteristics from 64-slice high definition (HDCT) versus 64-slice standard definition CT (SDCT) for coronary stent imaging. In twenty-five stents of 14 patients, undergoing contrast-enhanced CCTA both on 64-slice SDCT (LightSpeedVCT, GE Healthcare) and HDCT (Discovery HD750, GE Healthcare), radiation dose, contrast, noise and stent characteristics were assessed. Two blinded observers graded stent image quality (score 1 = no, 2 = mild, 3 = moderate, and 4 = severe artefacts). All scans were reconstructed with increasing contributions of adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction (ASIR) blending (0, 20, 40, 60, 80 and 100 %). Image quality was significantly superior in HDCT versus SDCT (score 1.7 ± 0.5 vs. 2.7 ± 0.7; p < 0.05). Image noise was significantly higher in HDCT compared to SDCT irrespective of ASIR contributions (p < 0.05). Addition of 40 % ASIR or more reduced image noise significantly in both HDCT and SDCT. In HDCT in-stent luminal attenuation was significantly lower and mean measured in-stent luminal diameter was significantly larger (1.2 ± 0.4 mm vs. 0.8 ± 0.4 mm; p < 0.05) compared to SDCT. Radiation dose from HDCT was comparable to SDCT (1.8 ± 0.7 mSv vs. 1.7 ± 0.7 mSv; p = ns). Use of HDCT for coronary stent imaging reduces partial volume artefacts from stents yielding improved image quality versus SDCT at a comparable radiation dose.

[1]  Filippo Cademartiri,et al.  CT coronary angiography for the follow-up of coronary stent. , 2010, Acta bio-medica : Atenei Parmensis.

[2]  J. Min,et al.  High-definition multidetector computed tomography for evaluation of coronary artery stents: comparison to standard-definition 64-detector row computed tomography. , 2009, Journal of cardiovascular computed tomography.

[3]  N. Kakani,et al.  Usefulness of 64-detector row computed tomography for evaluation of intracoronary stents in symptomatic patients with suspected in-stent restenosis. , 2008, The American journal of cardiology.

[4]  A. Pazhenkottil,et al.  Image quality and radiation dose comparison of prospectively triggered low-dose CCTA: 128-slice dual-source high-pitch spiral versus 64-slice single-source sequential acquisition , 2012, The International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging.

[5]  Jeroen J. Bax,et al.  Cardiac computed tomography: indications, applications, limitations, and training requirements: report of a Writing Group deployed by the Working Group Nuclear Cardiology and Cardiac CT of the European Society of Cardiology and the European Council of Nuclear Cardiology. , 2008, European heart journal.

[6]  H. Alkadhi,et al.  Comparison of diagnostic accuracy of 64-slice computed tomography coronary angiography in patients with low, intermediate, and high cardiovascular risk. , 2008, Academic radiology.

[7]  J. R. Landis,et al.  An application of hierarchical kappa-type statistics in the assessment of majority agreement among multiple observers. , 1977, Biometrics.

[8]  Fuminari Tatsugami,et al.  Evaluation of a body mass index-adapted protocol for low-dose 64-MDCT coronary angiography with prospective ECG triggering. , 2009, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[9]  L. Husmann,et al.  Diagnostic accuracy of computed tomography coronary angiography and evaluation of stress-only single-photon emission computed tomography/computed tomography hybrid imaging: comparison of prospective electrocardiogram-triggering vs. retrospective gating. , 2009, European heart journal.

[10]  Fuminari Tatsugami,et al.  Feasibility of low-dose coronary CT angiography: first experience with prospective ECG-gating. , 2007, European heart journal.

[11]  Fuminari Tatsugami,et al.  Accuracy of low-dose computed tomography coronary angiography using prospective electrocardiogram-triggering: first clinical experience. , 2008, European heart journal.

[12]  D. Andreini,et al.  Coronary in-stent restenosis: assessment with CT coronary angiography. , 2012, Radiology.

[13]  Rainer Raupach,et al.  64-slice multidetector coronary CT angiography: in vitro evaluation of 68 different stents , 2006, European Radiology.

[14]  A. Mahnken,et al.  Multislice spiral computed tomography for the detection of coronary stent restenosis and patency. , 2003, International journal of cardiology.

[15]  J. Leipsic,et al.  Adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction: assessment of image noise and image quality in coronary CT angiography. , 2010, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[16]  V. Treyer,et al.  First head-to-head comparison of effective radiation dose from low-dose 64-slice CT with prospective ECG-triggering versus invasive coronary angiography , 2009, Heart.

[17]  Volkmar Falk,et al.  Guidelines on myocardial revascularization. , 2010, European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery : official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery.

[18]  Michael Fiechter,et al.  Coronary artery calcium scoring: Influence of adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction using 64-MDCT. , 2013, International journal of cardiology.

[19]  P. Serruys,et al.  Sirolimus- vs paclitaxel-eluting stents in de novo coronary artery lesions: the REALITY trial: a randomized controlled trial. , 2006, JAMA.

[20]  Walter Heindel,et al.  Imaging of coronary artery stents using multislice computed tomography: in vitro evaluation , 2003, European Radiology.

[21]  B. Hamm,et al.  Noninvasive Coronary Angiography by 320-Row Computed Tomography With Lower Radiation Exposure and Maintained Diagnostic Accuracy: Comparison of Results With Cardiac Catheterization in a Head-to-Head Pilot Investigation , 2009, Circulation.

[22]  I. Burger,et al.  Validation of a new contrast material protocol adapted to body surface area for optimized low-dose CT coronary angiography with prospective ECG-triggering , 2010, The International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging.

[23]  Michael Fiechter,et al.  CT coronary angiography: impact of adapted statistical iterative reconstruction (ASIR) on coronary stenosis and plaque composition analysis , 2013, The International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging.

[24]  J. Stehli,et al.  Coronary artery stents: influence of adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction on image quality using 64-HDCT. , 2013, European heart journal cardiovascular Imaging.

[25]  J. Stehli,et al.  Image quality in low-dose coronary computed tomography angiography with a new high-definition CT scanner , 2013, The International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging.

[26]  V. Treyer,et al.  Low-dose computed tomography coronary angiography with prospective electrocardiogram triggering: feasibility in a large population. , 2011, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[27]  Jian Ying Li,et al.  High-Definition Computed Tomography for Coronary Artery Stents Imaging Compared With Standard-Definition 64-Row Multidectector Computed Tomography: An Initial in Vivo Study , 2012, Journal of computer assisted tomography.

[28]  F. Eberli,et al.  Coronary artery stent geometry and in-stent contrast attenuation with 64-slice computed tomography , 2007, European Radiology.

[29]  J. Knuuti,et al.  Ionizing radiation risks of cardiac imaging: estimates of the immeasurable. , 2011, European heart journal.