High Risk Plaque Features on Coronary CT Angiography

  • Andrea Bartykowszki
  • Csilla Celeng
  • Mihály Károlyi
  • Pál Maurovich-Horvat
Cardiac Computed Tomography (S Achenbach and T Villines, Section Editor)
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on Cardiac Computed Tomography


Coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) is a non-invasive imaging technique that can detect, characterize and quantify coronary atherosclerotic plaques in routine clinical settings. The distinct morphological features of vulnerable plaques and stable lesions provide an opportunity for CCTA to identify high-risk plaque features and guide stratified therapeutic interventions. Morphological plaque characteristics, such as large plaque volume, positive remodelling, low CT attenuation, spotty calcification and the napkin-ring sign have been linked to elevated risk of acute coronary syndrome. Recent advances in computational fluid dynamics enabled functional plaque assessment through endothelial shear stress and lesion specific fractional flow reserve calculation. The comprehensive, morphological and functional plaque assessment may improve the identification of vulnerable coronary lesions.


Coronary CT angiography Coronary atherosclerosis Vulnerable plaque High plaque features 



The authors thank Rolf Raaijmakers for the images processed with model based iterative reconstruction. This work was supported by the European Union and the State of Hungary, co-financed by the European Social Fund in the framework of TÁMOP 4.2.4. A/1-11-1-2012-0001 ‘National Excellence Program’.

Compliance with Ethics Guidelines

Conflict of Interest

Andrea Bartykowszki, Csilla Celeng, Mihály Károlyi, and Pál Maurovich-Horvat declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.


Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: •• Of major importance

  1. 1.
    Go AS et al. Heart disease and stroke statistics–2014 update: a report from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2014;129(3):e28–e292.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Falk E. Pathogenesis of atherosclerosis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006;47(8 Suppl):C7–C12.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hansson GK. Inflammation, atherosclerosis, and coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med. 2005;352(16):1685–95.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Libby P. Atherosclerosis: the new view. Sci Am. 2002;286(5):46–55.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Burke AP et al. Coronary risk factors and plaque morphology in men with coronary disease who died suddenly. N Engl J Med. 1997;336(18):1276–82.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Falk E et al. Update on acute coronary syndromes: the pathologists’ view. Eur Heart J. 2013;34(10):719–28.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Virmani R et al. Lessons from sudden coronary death: a comprehensive morphological classification scheme for atherosclerotic lesions. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 2000;20(5):1262–75.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Narula J, Achenbach S. Napkin-ring necrotic cores: defining circumferential extent of necrotic cores in unstable plaques. J Am Coll Cardiol Img. 2009;2(12):1436–8.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Alkadhi H et al. Low-dose, 128-slice, dual-source CT coronary angiography: accuracy and radiation dose of the high-pitch and the step-and-shoot mode. Heart. 2010;96(12):933–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sun Z, Ng KH. Diagnostic value of coronary CT angiography with prospective ECG-gating in the diagnosis of coronary artery disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2012;28(8):2109–19.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Miller JM et al. Diagnostic performance of coronary angiography by 64-row CT. N Engl J Med. 2008;359(22):2324–36.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Muller JE, Tofler GH, Stone PH. Circadian variation and triggers of onset of acute cardiovascular disease. Circulation. 1989;79(4):733–43.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Virmani R et al. Pathology of the vulnerable plaque. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006;47(8 Suppl):C13–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    van der Giessen AG et al. Small coronary calcifications are not detectable by 64-slice contrast enhanced computed tomography. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2011;27(1):143–52.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Stone GW et al. A prospective natural-history study of coronary atherosclerosis. N Engl J Med. 2011;364(3):226–35.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Maurovich-Horvat P et al. Methods of plaque quantification and characterization by cardiac computed tomography. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2009;3 Suppl 2:S91–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Schepis T et al. Comparison of dual source computed tomography versus intravascular ultrasound for evaluation of coronary arteries at least one year after cardiac transplantation. Am J Cardiol. 2009;104(10):1351–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Brodoefel H et al. Coronary plaque quantification by voxel analysis: dual-source MDCT angiography versus intravascular sonography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009;192(3):W84–9.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Petranovic M et al. Assessment of nonstenotic coronary lesions by 64-slice multidetector computed tomography in comparison to intravascular ultrasound: evaluation of nonculprit coronary lesions. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2009;3(1):24–31.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sun J et al. Identification and quantification of coronary atherosclerotic plaques: a comparison of 64-MDCT and intravascular ultrasound. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008;190(3):748–54.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.••
    Voros S et al. Coronary atherosclerosis imaging by coronary CT angiography: current status, correlation with intravascular interrogation and meta-analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol Img. 2011;4(5):537–48. A comprehensive review on the CCTA based quantitative and qualitative plaque characterization.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Leber AW et al. Accuracy of 64-slice computed tomography to classify and quantify plaque volumes in the proximal coronary system: a comparative study using intravascular ultrasound. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006;47(3):672–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hur J et al. Quantification and characterization of obstructive coronary plaques using 64-slice computed tomography: a comparison with intravascular ultrasound. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2009;33(2):186–92.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.••
    Boogers MJ et al. Automated quantification of coronary plaque with computed tomography: comparison with intravascular ultrasound using a dedicated registration algorithm for fusion-based quantification. Eur Heart J. 2012;33(8):1007–16. This study demonstrated the feasibility of semiautomated quantification of coronary plaque burden with CCTA. Quantitative computed tomography and IVUS showed good correlation.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Voros S et al. Prospective validation of standardized, 3-dimensional, quantitative coronary computed tomographic plaque measurements using radiofrequency backscatter intravascular ultrasound as reference standard in intermediate coronary arterial lesions: results from the ATLANTA (assessment of tissue characteristics, lesion morphology, and hemodynamics by angiography with fractional flow reserve, intravascular ultrasound and virtual histology, and noninvasive computed tomography in atherosclerotic plaques) I study. J Am Coll Cardiol Intv. 2011;4(2):198–208.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Oberoi S et al. Reproducibility of non-calcified coronary artery plaque burden quantification from coronary CT angiography across different image analysis platforms. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2014;202(1):W43–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Pflederer T et al. Characterization of culprit lesions in acute coronary syndromes using coronary dual-source CT angiography. Atherosclerosis. 2010;211(2):437–44.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Madder RD et al. Features of disrupted plaques by coronary computed tomographic angiography: correlates with invasively proven complex lesions. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2011;4(2):105–13.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Motoyama S et al. Computed tomographic angiography characteristics of atherosclerotic plaques subsequently resulting in acute coronary syndrome. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009;54(1):49–57.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.••
    Kristensen TS et al. Prognostic implications of nonobstructive coronary plaques in patients with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: a multidetector computed tomography study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;58(5):502–9. This prospective study demonstrated that the total amount of non-calcified plaque independently associated with an increased risk of recurrent coronary events after NSTEMI.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Versteylen MO et al. Additive value of semiautomated quantification of coronary artery disease using cardiac computed tomographic angiography to predict future acute coronary syndrome. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;61(22):2296–305.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Narula J et al. Arithmetic of vulnerable plaques for noninvasive imaging. Nat Clin Pract Cardiovasc Med. 2008;5 Suppl 2:S2–S10.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kopp AF et al. Non-invasive characterisation of coronary lesion morphology and composition by multislice CT: first results in comparison with intracoronary ultrasound. Eur Radiol. 2001;11(9):1607–11.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Schroeder S et al. Noninvasive detection and evaluation of atherosclerotic coronary plaques with multislice computed tomography. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2001;37(5):1430–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Becker CR et al. Ex vivo coronary atherosclerotic plaque characterization with multi-detector-row CT. Eur Radiol. 2003;13(9):2094–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Leber AW et al. Accuracy of multidetector spiral computed tomography in identifying and differentiating the composition of coronary atherosclerotic plaques: a comparative study with intracoronary ultrasound. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004;43(7):1241–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Pohle K et al. Characterization of non-calcified coronary atherosclerotic plaque by multi-detector row CT: comparison to IVUS. Atherosclerosis. 2007;190(1):174–80.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Ferencik M et al. Arterial wall imaging: evaluation with 16-section multidetector CT in blood vessel phantoms and ex vivo coronary arteries. Radiology. 2006;240(3):708–16.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Gauss S et al. Assessment of coronary artery remodelling by dual-source CT: a head-to-head comparison with intravascular ultrasound. Heart. 2011;97(12):991–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Schlett CL et al. Histogram analysis of lipid-core plaques in coronary computed tomographic angiography: ex vivo validation against histology. Investig Radiol. 2013;48(9):646–53.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Kashiwagi M et al. Feasibility of noninvasive assessment of thin-cap fibroatheroma by multidetector computed tomography. J Am Coll Cardiol Img. 2009;2(12):1412–9.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Ito T et al. Comparison of in vivo assessment of vulnerable plaque by 64-slice multislice computed tomography versus optical coherence tomography. Am J Cardiol. 2011;107(9):1270–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Ito H, et al. Characteristics of plaque progression detected by serial coronary computed tomography angiography. Heart and vessels, 2013. doi: 10.1007/s00380-013-0420-4.
  44. 44.
    Viles-Gonzalez JF et al. In vivo 16-slice, multidetector-row computed tomography for the assessment of experimental atherosclerosis: comparison with magnetic resonance imaging and histopathology. Circulation. 2004;110(11):1467–72.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Achenbach S et al. Influence of slice thickness and reconstruction kernel on the computed tomographic attenuation of coronary atherosclerotic plaque. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2010;4(2):110–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Cademartiri F et al. Influence of intracoronary attenuation on coronary plaque measurements using multislice computed tomography: observations in an ex vivo model of coronary computed tomography angiography. Eur Radiol. 2005;15(7):1426–31.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Suzuki S et al. Accuracy of attenuation measurement of vascular wall in vitro on computed tomography angiography: effect of wall thickness, density of contrast medium, and measurement point. Investig Radiol. 2006;41(6):510–5.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Achenbach S et al. CV imaging: what was new in 2012? JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2013;6(6):714–34.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Motoyama S et al. Multislice computed tomographic characteristics of coronary lesions in acute coronary syndromes. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007;50(4):319–26.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Kim SY et al. The culprit lesion score on multi-detector computed tomography can detect vulnerable coronary artery plaque. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2010;26 Suppl 2:245–52.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Kitagawa T et al. Characterization of non-calcified coronary plaques and identification of culprit lesions in patients with acute coronary syndrome by 64-slice computed tomography. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2009;2(2):153–60.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Glagov S et al. Compensatory enlargement of human atherosclerotic coronary arteries. N Engl J Med. 1987;316(22):1371–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Narula J, Strauss HW. The popcorn plaques. Nat Med. 2007;13(5):532–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.••
    Libby P. Mechanisms of acute coronary syndromes and their implications for therapy. N Engl J Med. 2013;368(21):2004–13. A comprehensive overview of the pathophysiology and latest therapeutic implications of acut coronary syndrome.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Achenbach S et al. Assessment of coronary remodelling in stenotic and nonstenotic coronary atherosclerotic lesions by multidetector spiral computed tomography. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004;43(5):842–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Mintz GS et al. American College of Cardiology Clinical Expert Consensus Document on Standards for Acquisition, Measurement and Reporting of Intravascular Ultrasound Studies (IVUS). A report of the American College of Cardiology Task Force on Clinical Expert Consensus Documents. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2001;37(5):1478–92.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Kroner ES et al. Positive remodelling on coronary computed tomography as a marker for plaque vulnerability on virtual histology intravascular ultrasound. Am J Cardiol. 2011;107(12):1725–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Otsuka F, Finn AV, Virmani R. Do vulnerable and ruptured plaques hide in heavily calcified arteries? Atherosclerosis. 2013;229(1):34–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Nakazawa G et al. Efficacy of culprit plaque assessment by 64-slice multidetector computed tomography to predict transient no-reflow phenomenon during percutaneous coronary intervention. Am Heart J. 2008;155(6):1150–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Taylor AJ et al. Coronary calcium independently predicts incident premature coronary heart disease over measured cardiovascular risk factors: mean three-year outcomes in the Prospective Army Coronary Calcium (PACC) project. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005;46(5):807–14.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Greenland P et al. Coronary artery calcium score combined with Framingham score for risk prediction in asymptomatic individuals. JAMA. 2004;291(2):210–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Huang H et al. The impact of calcification on the biomechanical stability of atherosclerotic plaques. Circulation. 2001;103(8):1051–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Mauriello A et al. Coronary calcification identifies the vulnerable patient rather than the vulnerable Plaque. Atherosclerosis. 2013;229(1):124–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Maldonado N et al. A mechanistic analysis of the role of microcalcifications in atherosclerotic plaque stability: potential implications for plaque rupture. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol. 2012;303(5):H619–28.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Kataoka Y et al. Spotty calcification as a marker of accelerated progression of coronary atherosclerosis: insights from serial intravascular ultrasound. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;59(18):1592–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Ehara S et al. Spotty calcification typifies the culprit plaque in patients with acute myocardial infarction: an intravascular ultrasound study. Circulation. 2004;110(22):3424–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Ferencik M et al. A computed tomography-based coronary lesion score to predict acute coronary syndrome among patients with acute chest pain and significant coronary stenosis on coronary computed tomographic angiogram. Am J Cardiol. 2012;110(2):183–9.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    van Velzen JE et al. Comprehensive assessment of spotty calcifications on computed tomography angiography: comparison to plaque characteristics on intravascular ultrasound with radiofrequency backscatter analysis. J Nucl Cardiol Off Publ Am Soc Nucl Cardiol. 2011;18(5):893–903.Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Ozaki Y et al. Coronary CT angiographic characteristics of culprit lesions in acute coronary syndromes not related to plaque rupture as defined by optical coherence tomography and angioscopy. Eur Heart J. 2011;32(22):2814–23.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.••
    Narula J et al. Histopathologic characteristics of atherosclerotic coronary disease and implications of the findings for the invasive and noninvasive detection of vulnerable plaques. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;61(10):1041–51. This postmortem study analized 295 coronary atherosclerotic plaques to define histomorphologic characteristics of vulnerable plaques and suggests that plaques that rupture cause substantial luminal narrowing before the acute event.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Kodama T et al. Computed tomographic angiography-verified plaque characteristics and slow-flow phenomenon during percutaneous coronary intervention. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2012;5(6):636–43.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Tanaka A et al. Non-invasive assessment of plaque rupture by 64-slice multidetector computed tomography–comparison with intravascular ultrasound. Circ J. 2008;72(8):1276–81.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Maurovich-Horvat P et al. The napkin-ring sign: CT signature of high-risk coronary plaques? JACC. Cardiovascular Imaging. 2010;3(4):440–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Maurovich-Horvat P et al. The napkin-ring sign indicates advanced atherosclerotic lesions in coronary CT angiography. J Am Coll Cardiol Img. 2012;5(12):1243–52.Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Seifarth H et al. Histopathological correlates of the napkin-ring sign plaque in coronary CT angiography. Atherosclerosis. 2012;224(1):90–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.••
    Otsuka K et al. Napkin-ring sign on coronary CT angiography for the prediction of acute coronary syndrome. J Am Coll Cardiol Img. 2013;6(4):448–57. The first prospective study which demonstrated that the napkin-ring sign on the CCTA is strongly associated with future ACS events.Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Achenbach S. Computed tomography coronary angiography. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006;48(10):1919–28.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Meijboom WB et al. Comprehensive assessment of coronary artery stenoses: computed tomography coronary angiography versus conventional coronary angiography and correlation with fractional flow reserve in patients with stable angina. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008;52(8):636–43.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    De Bruyne B et al. Coronary flow reserve calculated from pressure measurements in humans. Validation with positron emission tomography. Circulation. 1994;89(3):1013–22.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Berger A et al. Long-term clinical outcome after fractional flow reserve-guided percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with multivessel disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005;46(3):438–42.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Tonino PA et al. Fractional flow reserve versus angiography for guiding percutaneous coronary intervention. N Engl J Med. 2009;360(3):213–24.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Pijls NH et al. Experimental basis of determining maximum coronary, myocardial, and collateral blood flow by pressure measurements for assessing functional stenosis severity before and after percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty. Circulation. 1993;87(4):1354–67.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Koo BK et al. Diagnosis of ischemia-causing coronary stenoses by noninvasive fractional flow reserve computed from coronary computed tomographic angiograms. Results from the prospective multicenter DISCOVER-FLOW (Diagnosis of Ischemia-Causing Stenoses Obtained Via Noninvasive Fractional Flow Reserve) study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;58(19):1989–97.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Bech GJ et al. Fractional flow reserve to determine the appropriateness of angioplasty in moderate coronary stenosis: a randomized trial. Circulation. 2001;103(24):2928–34.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Fearon WF. Is a myocardial infarction more likely to result from a mild coronary lesion or an ischemia-producing one? Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2011;4(6):539–41.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Gijsen FJ et al. Strain distribution over plaques in human coronary arteries relates to shear stress. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol. 2008;295(4):H1608–14.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Hachamovitch R et al. Value of stress myocardial perfusion single photon emission computed tomography in patients with normal resting electrocardiograms: an evaluation of incremental prognostic value and cost-effectiveness. Circulation. 2002;105(7):823–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Shaw LJ et al. Optimal medical therapy with or without percutaneous coronary intervention to reduce ischemic burden: results from the Clinical Outcomes Utilizing Revascularization and Aggressive Drug Evaluation (COURAGE) trial nuclear substudy. Circulation. 2008;117(10):1283–91.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Caro CG, Fitz-Gerald JM, Schroter RC. Arterial wall shear and distribution of early atheroma in man. Nature. 1969;223(5211):1159–60.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Friedman MH et al. Correlation between wall shear and intimal thickness at a coronary artery branch. Atherosclerosis. 1987;68(1–2):27–33.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Koskinas KC et al. Natural history of experimental coronary atherosclerosis and vascular remodelling in relation to endothelial shear stress: a serial, in vivo intravascular ultrasound study. Circulation. 2010;121(19):2092–101.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Malek AM, Alper SL, Izumo S. Hemodynamic shear stress and its role in atherosclerosis. JAMA. 1999;282(21):2035–42.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Wentzel JJ et al. Endothelial shear stress in the evolution of coronary atherosclerotic plaque and vascular remodelling: current understanding and remaining questions. Cardiovasc Res. 2012;96(2):234–43.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Chatzizisis YS et al. Role of endothelial shear stress in the natural history of coronary atherosclerosis and vascular remodelling: molecular, cellular, and vascular behavior. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007;49(25):2379–93.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Dey D et al. Automated three-dimensional quantification of non-calcified coronary plaque from coronary CT angiography: comparison with intravascular US. Radiology. 2010;257(2):516–22.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Stone PH et al. Prediction of progression of coronary artery disease and clinical outcomes using vascular profiling of endothelial shear stress and arterial plaque characteristics: the PREDICTION Study. Circulation. 2012;126(2):172–81.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    Frauenfelder T et al. In-vivo flow simulation in coronary arteries based on computed tomography datasets: feasibility and initial results. Eur Radiol. 2007;17(5):1291–300.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    Jin S et al. Flow patterns and wall shear stress distributions at atherosclerotic-prone sites in a human left coronary artery–an exploration using combined methods of CT and computational fluid dynamics. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2004;5:3789–91.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  99. 99.
    Borkin MA et al. Evaluation of artery visualizations for heart disease diagnosis. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph. 2011;17(12):2479–88.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    Ramkumar PG et al. New advances in cardiac computed tomography. Curr Opin Cardiol. 2009;24(6):596–603.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    Gijsen FJ et al. 3D reconstruction techniques of human coronary bifurcations for shear stress computations. J Biomech. 2014;47(1):39–43.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    McCullough EC. Photon attenuation in computed tomography. Med Phys. 1975;2(6):307–20.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    Alvarez RE, Macovski A. Energy-selective reconstructions in X-ray computerized tomography. Phys Med Biol. 1976;21(5):733–44.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  104. 104.
    Halliburton SS. Recent technologic advances in multi-detector row cardiac CT. Cardiol Clin. 2009;27(4):655–64.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  105. 105.
    Ruzsics B et al. Dual-energy CT of the heart for diagnosing coronary artery stenosis and myocardial ischemia-initial experience. Eur Radiol. 2008;18(11):2414–24.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  106. 106.
    Schwarz F et al. Dual-energy CT of the heart–principles and protocols. Eur J Radiol. 2008;68(3):423–33.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  107. 107.
    So A et al. Prospectively ECG-triggered rapid kV-switching dual-energy CT for quantitative imaging of myocardial perfusion. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2012;5(8):829–36.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  108. 108.
    Shinohara M et al. Atherosclerotic plaque imaging using phase-contrast X-ray computed tomography. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol. 2008;294(2):H1094–100.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  109. 109.
    Momose A, Fukuda J. Phase-contrast radiographs of nonstained rat cerebellar specimen. Med Phys. 1995;22(44):6355–67.Google Scholar
  110. 110.
    Fitzgerald R. Phase-sensitive x-ray imaging. Phys Today. 2000;53(7):23–6.Google Scholar
  111. 111.
    Hyafil F et al. Quantification of inflammation within rabbit atherosclerotic plaques using the macrophage-specific CT contrast agent N1177: a comparison with 18F-FDG PET/CT and histology. J Nucl Med. 2009;50(6):959–65.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  112. 112.
    Cormode DP et al. Atherosclerotic plaque composition: analysis with multicolor CT and targeted gold nanoparticles. Radiology. 2010;256(3):774–82.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  113. 113.
    Rogers IS et al. Feasibility of FDG imaging of the coronary arteries: comparison between acute coronary syndrome and stable angina. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2010;3(4):388–97.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  114. 114.••
    Joshi NV et al. 18F-fluoride positron emission tomography for identification of ruptured and high-risk coronary atherosclerotic plaques: a prospective clinical trial. Lancet. 2014;383(9918):705–13. In this prospective clinical trial the authors have shown that intense 18F-NaF uptake localises to recent plaque rupture in patients with acute myocardial infarction.Google Scholar
  115. 115.
    Marin D et al. Low-tube-voltage, high-tube-current multidetector abdominal CT: improved image quality and decreased radiation dose with adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction algorithm–initial clinical experience. Radiology. 2010;254(1):145–53.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  116. 116.
    Prakash P et al. Diffuse lung disease: CT of the chest with adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction technique. Radiology. 2010;256(1):261–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  117. 117.
    Yu Z et al. Fast model-based X-ray CT reconstruction using spatially nonhomogeneous ICD optimization. IEEE Trans Image Process. 2011;20(1):161–75.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  118. 118.
    Scheffel H et al. Coronary artery plaques: cardiac CT with model-based and adaptive-statistical iterative reconstruction technique. Eur J Radiol. 2012;81(3):e363–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  119. 119.
    Yoo RE et al. Image quality of adaptive iterative dose reduction 3D of coronary CT angiography of 640-slice CT: comparison with filtered back-projection. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2013;29(3):669–76.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  120. 120.
    Leipsic J, Heilbron BG, Hague C. Iterative reconstruction for coronary CT angiography: finding its way. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2012;28(3):613–20.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  121. 121.
    Benedek T, Gyongyosi M, Benedek I. Multislice computed tomographic coronary angiography for quantitative assessment of culprit lesions in acute coronary syndromes. Can J Cardiol. 2013;29(3):364–71.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  122. 122.
    Leipsic J et al. Estimated radiation dose reduction using adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction in coronary CT angiography: the ERASIR study. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010;195(3):655–60.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  123. 123.
    Min JK et al. Diagnostic accuracy of fractional flow reserve from anatomic CT angiography. JAMA. 2012;308(12):1237–45.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  124. 124.
    Takx RA et al. The effect of iterative reconstruction on quantitative computed tomography assessment of coronary plaque composition. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2014;30(1):155–63.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  125. 125.
    Fuchs TA et al. CT coronary angiography: impact of adapted statistical iterative reconstruction (ASIR) on coronary stenosis and plaque composition analysis. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2013;29(3):719–24.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  126. 126.
    Renker M et al. Evaluation of heavily calcified vessels with coronary CT angiography: comparison of iterative and filtered back projection image reconstruction. Radiology. 2011;260(2):390–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  127. 127.
    Puchner SB et al. The effect of iterative image reconstruction algorithms on the feasibility of automated plaque assessment in coronary CT angiography. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2013;29(8):1879–88.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrea Bartykowszki
    • 1
  • Csilla Celeng
    • 1
  • Mihály Károlyi
    • 1
  • Pál Maurovich-Horvat
    • 1
  1. 1.MTA-SE Lendület Cardiovascular Imaging Research GroupHeart and Vascular Center, Semmelweis UniversityBudapestHungary

Personalised recommendations