Impact of an advanced image-based monoenergetic reconstruction algorithm on coronary stent visualization using third generation dual-source dual-energy CT: a phantom study
- 488 Downloads
To evaluate the impact of an advanced monoenergetic (ME) reconstruction algorithm on CT coronary stent imaging in a phantom model.
Materials and methods
Three stents with lumen diameters of 2.25, 3.0 and 3.5 mm were examined with a third-generation dual-source dual-energy CT (DECT). Tube potential was set at 90/Sn150 kV for DE and 70, 90 or 120 kV for single-energy (SE) acquisitions and advanced modelled iterative reconstruction was used. Overall, 23 reconstructions were evaluated for each stent including three SE acquisitions and ten advanced and standard ME images with virtual photon energies from 40 to 130 keV, respectively. In-stent luminal diameter was measured and compared to nominal lumen diameter to determine stent lumen visibility. Contrast-to-noise ratio was calculated.
Advanced ME reconstructions substantially increased lumen visibility in comparison to SE for stents ≤3 mm. 130 keV images produced the best mean lumen visibility: 86 % for the 2.25 mm stent (82 % for standard ME and 64 % for SE) and 82 % for the 3.0 mm stent (77 % for standard ME and 69 % for SE). Mean DLP for SE 120 kV and DE acquisitions were 114.4 ± 9.8 and 58.9 ± 2.2 mGy × cm, respectively.
DECT with advanced ME reconstructions improves the in-lumen visibility of small stents in comparison with standard ME and SE imaging.
• An advanced image-based monoenergetic reconstruction algorithm improves lumen visualization in stents ≤3.0 mm.
• Application of high keV reconstructions significantly improves in-stent lumen visualization.
• DECT acquisition resulted in 49 % radiation dose reduction compared with 120 kV SE.
KeywordsDual-energy CT Coronary CT Stent Monoenergetic imaging Iterative reconstruction
Coronary computed tomography
Dual-energy computed tomography
Volume-based computed tomography dose index
The scientific guarantor of this publication is Carlo N. De Cecco. The authors of this manuscript declare relationships with the following companies: Dr. Schoepf is a consultant for and receives research support from Bayer, Bracco, GE, Medrad, and Siemens. Mr. Canstein is a Siemens employee. The authors state that this work has not received any funding. No complex statistical methods were necessary for this paper. Institutional Review Board approval was not required because the study was performed by using a thoracic phantom model. No study subjects or cohorts have been previously reported. Methodology: prospective, experimental, performed at one institution.
- 1.Mahnken AH (2012) CT imaging of coronary stents: past, present, and future. ISRN Cardiol 139823Google Scholar
- 8.Geyer LL, Glenn GR, De Cecco CN et al (2015) CT evaluation of small-diameter coronary artery stents: effect of an integrated circuit detector with iterative reconstruction. Radiology 276:706–714Google Scholar
- 11.Bongers MN, Schabel C, Krauss B et al (2014) Noise-optimized virtual monoenergetic images and iodine maps for the detection of venous thrombosis in second-generation dual-energy CT (DECT): an ex vivo phantom study. Eur Radiol 25:1655–1664Google Scholar
- 13.Grant KL, Flohr TG, Krauss B, Sedlmair M, Thomas C, Schmidt B (2014) Assessment of an advanced image-based technique to calculate virtual monoenergetic computed tomographic images from a dual-energy examination to improve contrast-to-noise ratio in examinations using iodinated contrast media. Investig Radiol 49:586–592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 14.Stehli J, Fuchs TA, Singer A et al (2014) First experience with single-source, dual-energy CCTA for monochromatic stent imaging. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging 16:507–512Google Scholar
- 20.Taylor AJ, Cerqueira M, Hodgson JM et al (2010) ACCF/SCCT/ACR/AHA/ASE/ASNC/NASCI/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 North American Society for Cardiovascular Imaging, the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance. Circulation 122:e525–e555CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar