Improvement of in-stent lumen measurement accuracy with new High-Definition CT in a phantom model: comparison with conventional 64-detector row CT
- 8 January 2011
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Springer Nature in The International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging
- Vol. 28 (2) , 337-342
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.Keywords
This publication has 11 references indexed in Scilit:
- ACCF/SCCT/ACR/AHA/ASE/ASNC/NASCI/SCAI/SCMR 2010 Appropriate Use Criteria for Cardiac Computed TomographyJACC, 2010
- Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic Efficacy of 64-Slice Computed Tomography in the Evaluation of Coronary In-Stent RestenosisThe American Journal of Cardiology, 2009
- Initial evaluation of coronary images from 320-detector row computed tomographyThe International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging, 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 CardiologyEuropean Heart Journal, 2007
- Coronary stent assessability by 64 slice multi‐detector computed tomographyCatheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions, 2007
- Assessment of coronary artery stent restenosis by 64-slice multi-detector computed tomographyEuropean Heart Journal, 2006
- Sirolimus- vs Paclitaxel-Eluting Stents in De Novo Coronary Artery LesionsJAMA, 2006
- First performance evaluation of a dual-source CT (DSCT) systemEuropean Radiology, 2005
- Flat-panel detector computed tomography for the assessment of coronary artery stents: phantom study in comparison with 16-slice spiral computed tomography.2005
- Analysis of 1-Year Clinical Outcomes in the SIRIUS TrialCirculation, 2004