Journal of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography
Volume 3, Issue 4 , Pages 246-251, July 2009

High-definition multidetector computed tomography for evaluation of coronary artery stents: Comparison to standard-definition 64-detector row computed tomography

  • James K. Min, MD

      Affiliations

    • The Greenberg Division of Cardiology, Weill Medical College of Cornell University, The New York Presbyterian Hospital, 520 E 70th Street, K415, New York, NY 10021, USA
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author.
  • ,
  • Rajesh V. Swaminathan

      Affiliations

    • The Greenberg Division of Cardiology, Weill Medical College of Cornell University, The New York Presbyterian Hospital, 520 E 70th Street, K415, New York, NY 10021, USA
  • ,
  • Melissa Vass

      Affiliations

    • Computed Tomography Engineering, GE Healthcare, Princeton, NJ, USA
  • ,
  • Scott Gallagher

      Affiliations

    • Computed Tomography Engineering, GE Healthcare, Princeton, NJ, USA
  • ,
  • Jonathan W. Weinsaft, MD

      Affiliations

    • The Greenberg Division of Cardiology, Weill Medical College of Cornell University, The New York Presbyterian Hospital, 520 E 70th Street, K415, New York, NY 10021, USA

Received 10 February 2009; accepted 6 June 2009. published online 15 June 2009.

Background

The assessment of coronary stents with present-generation 64-detector row computed tomography scanners that use filtered backprojection and operating at standard definition of 0.5–0.75mm (standard definition, SDCT) is limited by imaging artifacts and noise.

Objectives

We evaluated the performance of a novel, high-definition 64-slice CT scanner (HDCT), with improved spatial resolution (0.23mm) and applied statistical iterative reconstruction (ASIR) for evaluation of coronary artery stents.

Methods

HDCT and SDCT stent imaging was performed with the use of an ex vivo phantom. HDCT was compared with SDCT with both smooth and sharp kernels for stent intraluminal diameter, intraluminal area, and image noise. Intrastent visualization was assessed with an ASIR algorithm on HDCT scans, compared with the filtered backprojection algorithms by SDCT.

Results

Six coronary stents (2.5, 2.5, 2.75, 3.0, 3.5, 4.0mm) were analyzed by 2 independent readers. Interobserver correlation was high for both HDCT and SDCT. HDCT yielded substantially larger luminal area visualization compared with SDCT, both for smooth (29.4±14.5 versus 20.1±13.0; P<0.001) and sharp (32.0±15.2 versus 25.5±12.0; P<0.001) kernels. Stent diameter was higher with HDCT compared with SDCT, for both smooth (1.54±0.59 versus1.00±0.50; P<0.0001) and detailed (1.47±0.65 versus 1.08±0.54; P<0.0001) kernels. With detailed kernels, HDCT scans that used algorithms showed a trend toward decreased image noise compared with SDCT-filtered backprojection algorithms.

Conclusions

On the basis of this ex vivo study, HDCT provides superior detection of intrastent luminal area and diameter visualization, compared with SDCT. ASIR image reconstruction techniques for HDCT scans enhance the in-stent assessment while decreasing image noise.

Keywords: Computed tomography, Iterative reconstruction, Spatial resolution

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

 Conflict of interest: Dr Min serves on the speaker's bureau for GE Healthcare. M. Voss and S. Gallagher are employees of GE Healthcare. The remaining authors report no conflicts of interest.

PII: S1934-5925(09)00259-7

doi:10.1016/j.jcct.2009.06.006

Journal of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography
Volume 3, Issue 4 , Pages 246-251, July 2009