Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
The International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. 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 295:895–904

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. 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 109:634–640

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Flohr TG, McCollough CH, Bruder H et al (2006) First performance evaluation of a dual-source CT (DSCT) system. Eur Radiol 16:256–268

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Rybicki FJ, Otero HJ, Steigner ML et al (2008) Initial evaluation of coronary images from 320-detector row computed tomography. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 24:535–546

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. 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 29:531–556

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. 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 27:2567–2572

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. 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 103:1675–1681

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. 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 56:1864–1894

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 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 40:8–13

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. 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. 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 3:246–251

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Sheth T, Dodd JD, Hoffmann U et al (2007) Coronary stent assessability by 64 slice multi-detector computed tomography. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 69:933–938

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Keio University School of Medicine, 35 Shinanomachi, Shinzyuku-ku, Tokyo, 160-8582, Japan

    Yutaka Tanami, Masahiro Jinzaki & Sachio Kuribayashi

  2. Research Park, School of Medicine, Keio University, 35 Shinanomachi, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo, 160-8582, Japan

    Minoru Yamada

  3. CT Engineering, GE Healthcare Japan, 4-7-127 Asahigaoka, Hino-Shi, Tokyo, 191-8503, Japan

    Yasuhiro Imai

  4. CT Customer Application, GE Healthcare Japan, 4-7-127 Asahigaoka, Hino-Shi, Tokyo, 191-8503, Japan

    Koji Segawa

Authors
  1. Yutaka Tanami
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Masahiro Jinzaki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Minoru Yamada
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Yasuhiro Imai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Koji Segawa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Sachio Kuribayashi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Masahiro Jinzaki.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Tanami, Y., Jinzaki, M., Yamada, M. et al. Improvement of in-stent lumen measurement accuracy with new High-Definition CT in a phantom model: comparison with conventional 64-detector row CT. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 28, 337–342 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10554-010-9786-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10554-010-9786-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation