Skip to main content
Top
Published in: The International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging 2/2012

01-02-2012 | Original Paper

Improvement of in-stent lumen measurement accuracy with new High-Definition CT in a phantom model: comparison with conventional 64-detector row CT

Authors: Yutaka Tanami, Masahiro Jinzaki, Minoru Yamada, Yasuhiro Imai, Koji Segawa, Sachio Kuribayashi

Published in: The International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging | Issue 2/2012

Login to get access

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to evaluate improvement of measurement accuracy of in-stent lumen using coronary stent phantoms on new High-Definition CT (HDCT) compared with conventional 64 detector-row CT (MDCT). To estimate the spatial resolution, a high-resolution insert of CATPHAN (The Phantom Laboratory, NY, USA) was scanned by both HDCT (Discovery CT750 HD) and MDCT (LightSpeed VCT). Also, we developed six types of stent phantom, which have 2.5- and 3.0-mm-diameter with three different types of stents (Velocity: Johnson & Johnson, Driver: Medtronic, Multilink-Rx: Guidant). A 50% stenotic segment made of acrylic resin was built at the center inside the stent. Those coronary vessel phantoms were made of acrylic resin and filled with diluted Iodine (350 HU in 120 kVp), and each stent was fixed inside of those vessels. Those phantoms in water-filled tank were scanned on both HDCT and MDCT. The luminal diameter obtained using digital calipers at five different points and the mean luminal diameter (MLD) were calculated. The underestimate ratio (UR) and △UR was defined as follows: UR = [True diameter of stent—MLD]/True diameter of stent; △UR = [MLD at HDCT—MLD at MDCT]/True diameter of stent. The spatial resolution was estimated to be 0.71 mm on MDCT and 0.50 mm on HDCT. At the non-stenotic segments, the △URs were 11.6% (Velocity), 16.4% (Driver) and 7.2% (Multilink) for the 2.5-mm stents, and 14.0% (Velocity), 16.3% (Driver) and 13.3% (Multilink) for the 3.0-mm stents. At the stenotic segment, the △URs were 23.2% (Velocity), 8.0% (Driver) and 13.6% (Multilink) for the 2.5-mm stents, and 20.0% (Velocity), 14.7% (Driver) and 15.3% (Multilink) for the 3.0-mm stents. Superior spatial resolution of HDCT could be promising for more accurate measurement of in-stent diameter.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Morice MC, Colombo A, Meier B et al (2006) Sirolimus- vs paclitaxel-eluting stents in de novo coronary artery lesions: the REALITY trial: a randomized controlled trial. Jama 295:895–904PubMedCrossRef Morice MC, Colombo A, Meier B et al (2006) Sirolimus- vs paclitaxel-eluting stents in de novo coronary artery lesions: the REALITY trial: a randomized controlled trial. Jama 295:895–904PubMedCrossRef
2.
go back to reference Holmes DR Jr., Leon MB, Moses JW et al (2004) Analysis of 1-year clinical outcomes in the SIRIUS trial: a randomized trial of a sirolimus-eluting stent versus a standard stent in patients at high risk for coronary restenosis. Circulation 109:634–640PubMedCrossRef Holmes DR Jr., Leon MB, Moses JW et al (2004) Analysis of 1-year clinical outcomes in the SIRIUS trial: a randomized trial of a sirolimus-eluting stent versus a standard stent in patients at high risk for coronary restenosis. Circulation 109:634–640PubMedCrossRef
3.
go back to reference Flohr TG, McCollough CH, Bruder H et al (2006) First performance evaluation of a dual-source CT (DSCT) system. Eur Radiol 16:256–268PubMedCrossRef Flohr TG, McCollough CH, Bruder H et al (2006) First performance evaluation of a dual-source CT (DSCT) system. Eur Radiol 16:256–268PubMedCrossRef
4.
go back to reference Rybicki FJ, Otero HJ, Steigner ML et al (2008) Initial evaluation of coronary images from 320-detector row computed tomography. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 24:535–546PubMedCrossRef Rybicki FJ, Otero HJ, Steigner ML et al (2008) Initial evaluation of coronary images from 320-detector row computed tomography. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 24:535–546PubMedCrossRef
5.
go back to reference Schroeder S, Achenbach S, Bengel F et al (2008) 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. Eur Heart J 29:531–556PubMedCrossRef Schroeder S, Achenbach S, Bengel F et al (2008) 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. Eur Heart J 29:531–556PubMedCrossRef
6.
go back to reference Rixe J, Achenbach S, Ropers D et al (2006) Assessment of coronary artery stent restenosis by 64-slice multi-detector computed tomography. Eur Heart J 27:2567–2572PubMedCrossRef Rixe J, Achenbach S, Ropers D et al (2006) Assessment of coronary artery stent restenosis by 64-slice multi-detector computed tomography. Eur Heart J 27:2567–2572PubMedCrossRef
7.
go back to reference Kumbhani DJ, Ingelmo CP, Schoenhagen P et al (2009) Meta-analysis of diagnostic efficacy of 64-slice computed tomography in the evaluation of coronary in-stent restenosis. Am J Cardiol 103:1675–1681PubMedCrossRef Kumbhani DJ, Ingelmo CP, Schoenhagen P et al (2009) Meta-analysis of diagnostic efficacy of 64-slice computed tomography in the evaluation of coronary in-stent restenosis. Am J Cardiol 103:1675–1681PubMedCrossRef
8.
go back to reference Taylor AJ, Cerqueira M, Hodgson JM et al (2010) ACCF/SCCT/ACR/AHA/ASE/ASNC/SCAI/SCMR 2010 Appropriate Use Criteria for Cardiac Computed Tomography. A Report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Appropriate Use Criteria Task Force, the Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, the American College of Radiology, the American Heart Association, the American Society of Echocardiography, the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance. CARDIAC COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY WRITING GROUP, Journal of the American College of Cardiology. J Am Coll Cardiol 56:1864–1894PubMedCrossRef Taylor AJ, Cerqueira M, Hodgson JM et al (2010) ACCF/SCCT/ACR/AHA/ASE/ASNC/SCAI/SCMR 2010 Appropriate Use Criteria for Cardiac Computed Tomography. A Report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Appropriate Use Criteria Task Force, the Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, the American College of Radiology, the American Heart Association, the American Society of Echocardiography, the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance. CARDIAC COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY WRITING GROUP, Journal of the American College of Cardiology. J Am Coll Cardiol 56:1864–1894PubMedCrossRef
9.
go back to reference Mahnken AH, Seyfarth T, Flohr T et al (2005) Flat-panel detector computed tomography for the assessment of coronary artery stents: phantom study in comparison with 16-slice spiral computed tomography. Invest Radiol 40:8–13PubMed Mahnken AH, Seyfarth T, Flohr T et al (2005) Flat-panel detector computed tomography for the assessment of coronary artery stents: phantom study in comparison with 16-slice spiral computed tomography. Invest Radiol 40:8–13PubMed
10.
go back to reference Vartuli JS, Lyons RJ, Vess CJ et al (2008) GE Healthcare’s New Computed Tomography Scintillator—Gemstone. Symposium on Radiation Measurement and Applications, June 2–5, Berkeley, California Vartuli JS, Lyons RJ, Vess CJ et al (2008) GE Healthcare’s New Computed Tomography Scintillator—Gemstone. Symposium on Radiation Measurement and Applications, June 2–5, Berkeley, California
11.
go back to reference Min JK, Swaminathan RV, Vass M et al (2009) High-definition multidetector computed tomography for evaluation of coronary artery stents: comparison to standard-definition 64-detector row computed tomography. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr 3:246–251PubMedCrossRef Min JK, Swaminathan RV, Vass M et al (2009) High-definition multidetector computed tomography for evaluation of coronary artery stents: comparison to standard-definition 64-detector row computed tomography. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr 3:246–251PubMedCrossRef
12.
go back to reference Sheth T, Dodd JD, Hoffmann U et al (2007) Coronary stent assessability by 64 slice multi-detector computed tomography. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 69:933–938PubMedCrossRef Sheth T, Dodd JD, Hoffmann U et al (2007) Coronary stent assessability by 64 slice multi-detector computed tomography. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 69:933–938PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Improvement of in-stent lumen measurement accuracy with new High-Definition CT in a phantom model: comparison with conventional 64-detector row CT
Authors
Yutaka Tanami
Masahiro Jinzaki
Minoru Yamada
Yasuhiro Imai
Koji Segawa
Sachio Kuribayashi
Publication date
01-02-2012
Publisher
Springer Netherlands
Published in
The International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging / Issue 2/2012
Print ISSN: 1569-5794
Electronic ISSN: 1875-8312
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10554-010-9786-x

Other articles of this Issue 2/2012

The International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging 2/2012 Go to the issue