In vitro imaging of coronary artery stents: Are there differences between 16- and 64-slice CT scanners?

European Journal of Radiology

Volumn 68, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 465-470

  Wolf, Florian ^a   Feuchtner, Gudrun M ^b   Homolka, Peter ^a   Langenberger, Herbert ^a   Stadler, Alfred ^a   Bader, Till R ^a   Weber, Michael ^a   Lammer, Johannes ^a   Loewe, Christian ^a  

^a MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF VIENNA   (Austria)

^b INNSBRUCK MEDICAL UNIVERSITY   (Austria)

Author keywords

Artifacts; Chest phantom; Coronary artery stent; Multislice CT

Indexed keywords

BLOOD VESSELS; ELECTRIC INSTRUMENT TRANSFORMERS; MEDICAL IMAGING;

ARTIFACTS; CHEST PHANTOM; CORONARY ARTERIES; CORONARY ARTERY STENT; CT SCANNERS; HOUNSFIELD UNITS; IMAGE NOISES; IN VITRO; IN VITRO IMAGING; IN-VIVO; INTRALUMINAL; MULTISLICE CT; STANDARD DEVIATIONS;

SCANNING;

ARTICLE; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; CORONARY STENT; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; EVALUATION; HEART; IMAGE QUALITY; IMPLANTATION; IN VITRO STUDY; MULTIDETECTOR COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY; PHANTOM; PRIORITY JOURNAL; THORAX; ANGIOCARDIOGRAPHY; BLOOD VESSEL PROSTHESIS; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CORONARY BLOOD VESSEL; DEVICE FAILURE ANALYSIS; DEVICES; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; EVALUATION STUDY; HUMAN; PROCEDURES; REPRODUCIBILITY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; STENT; SURGERY;

BLOOD VESSEL PROSTHESIS; CORONARY ANGIOGRAPHY; CORONARY VESSELS; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; EQUIPMENT FAILURE ANALYSIS; HUMANS; PHANTOMS, IMAGING; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; STENTS; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED;

EID: 56349099884     PISSN: 0720048X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2007.08.032     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Maier W., Abay M., Cook S., Togni M., et al. The 2002 European registry of cardiac catheter interventions. Int J Cardiol 113 (2006) 299-304
2. Kastrati A., Mehilli J., von Beckerath N., et al. Sirolimus-eluting stent or paclitaxel-eluting stent vs. balloon angioplasty for prevention of recurrences in patients with coronary in-stent restenosis: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 293 (2005) 165-171
3. Morice M.C., Serruys P.W., Sousa J.E., et al. A randomized comparison of a sirolimus-eluting stent with a standard stent for coronary revascularization. N Engl J Med 346 (2002) 1773-1780
4. Raja S.G., and Dreyfus G.D. Efficacy and safety of drug-eluting stents: current best available evidence. J Card Surg 21 (2006) 605-612
5. Stone G.W., Moses J.W., Ellis S.G., et al. Safety and efficacy of sirolimus- and paclitaxel-eluting coronary stents. N Engl J Med 356 (2007) 998-1008
6. West R., Ellis G., and Brooks N. Complications of diagnostic cardiac catheterisation: results from a confidential inquiry into cardiac catheter complications. Heart 92 (2006) 810-814
7. Maintz D., Grude M., Fallenberg E.M., Heindel W., and Fischbach R. Assessment of coronary arterial stents by multislice-CT angiography. Acta Radiol 44 (2003) 597-603
8. Kruger S., Mahnken A.H., Sinha A.M., et al. Multislice spiral computed tomography for the detection of coronary stent restenosis and patency. Int J Cardiol 89 (2003) 167-172
9. Ligabue G., Rossi R., Ratti C., Favali M., Modena M.G., and Romagnoli R. Noninvasive evaluation of coronary artery stents patency after PTCA: role of multislice computed tomography. Radiol Med (Torino) 108 (2004) 128-137
10. Seifarth H., Raupach R., Schaller S., et al. Assessment of coronary artery stents using 16-slice MDCT angiography: evaluation of a dedicated reconstruction kernel and a noise reduction filter. Eur Radiol 15 (2005) 721-726
11. Mahnken A.H., Buecker A., Wildberger J.E., et al. Coronary artery stents in multislice computed tomography: in vitro artefact evaluation. Invest Radiol 39 (2004) 27-33
12. Maintz D., Seifarth H., Flohr T., et al. Improved coronary artery stent visualization and in-stent stenosis detection using 16-slice computed-tomography and dedicated image reconstruction technique. Invest Radiol 38 (2003) 790-795
13. Kuettner A., Beck T., Drosch T., et al. Image quality and diagnostic accuracy of non-invasive coronary imaging with 16 detector slice spiral computed tomography with 188 ms temporal resolution. Heart 91 (2005) 938-941
14. Gilard M., Cornily J.C., Pennec P.Y., et al. Assessment of coronary artery stents by 16 slice computed tomography. Heart 92 (2006) 58-61
15. Hong C., Chrysant G.S., Woodard P.K., and Bae K.T. Coronary artery stent patency assessed with in-stent contrast enhancement measured at multi-detector row CT angiography: initial experience. Radiology 233 (2004) 286-291
16. Van Mieghem C.A., Cademartiri F., Mollet N.R., et al. Multislice spiral computed tomography for the evaluation of stent patency after left main coronary artery stenting: a comparison with conventional coronary angiography and intravascular. Circulation 114 (2006) 645-653
17. Cademartiri F., Mollet N., Lemos P.A., et al. Usefulness of multislice computed tomographic coronary angiography to assess in-stent restenosis. Am J Cardiol 96 (2005) 799-802
18. Flohr T., Stierstorfer K., Raupach R., Ulzheimer S., and Bruder H. Performance evaluation of a 64-slice CT system with z-flying focal spot. Rofo 176 (2004) 1803-1810
19. Flohr T., Bruder H., Stierstorfer K., Simon J., Schaller S., and Ohnesorge B. New technical developments in multislice CT, Part 2. Sub-millimeter 16-slice scanning and increased gantry rotation speed for cardiac imaging. Rofo 174 (2002) 1023-1027
20. Rixe J., Achenbach S., Ropers D., et al. Assessment of coronary artery stent restenosis by 64-slice multi-detector computed tomography. Eur Heart J 27 (2006) 2567-2572
21. Homolka P., Gahleitner A., Prokop M., and Nowotny R. Optimization of the composition of phantom materials for computed tomography. Phys Med Biol 47 (2002) 2907-2916
22. Suzuki S., Furui S., Kaminaga T., et al. Evaluation of coronary stents in vitro with CT angiography: effect of stent diameter, convolution kernel, and vessel orientation to the z-axis. Circ J 69 (2005) 1124-1131
23. Seifarth H., Ozgun M., Raupach R., et al. 64- Versus 16-slice CT angiography for coronary artery stent assessment: in vitro experience. Invest Radiol 41 (2006) 22-27
24. Erne P., Schier M., and Resink T.J. The road to bioabsorbable stents: reaching clinical reality?. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 29 (2006) 11-16
25. Maintz D., Juergens K.U., Wichter T., Grude M., Heindel W., and Fischbach R. Imaging of coronary artery stents using multislice computed tomography: in vitro evaluation. Eur Radiol 13 (2003) 830-835
26. Maintz D., Seifarth H., Raupach R., et al. 64-slice multidetector coronary CT angiography: in vitro evaluation of 68 different stents. Eur Radiol 16 (2006) 818-826
27. Mahnken A.H., Seyfarth T., Flohr T., et al. Flat-panel detector computed tomography for the assessment of coronary artery stents: phantom study in comparison with 16-slice spiral computed tomography. Invest Radiol 40 (2005) 8-13
28. Greuter M.J., Dorgelo J., Tukker W.G., and Oudkerk M. Study on motion artifacts in coronary arteries with an anthropomorphic moving heart phantom on an ECG-gated multidetector computed tomography unit. Eur Radiol 15 (2005) 995-1007
29. Yamamura J., van Stevendaal U., Koster R., Grass M., Adam G., and Begemann P.G. Experimental 16-row CT evaluation of in-stent restenosis using new stationary and moving cardiac stent phantoms: experimental examination. Rofo 178 (2006) 1079-1085