Stent Assessment

  • Junjie Yang
  • Christian Tesche
  • Taylor M. Duguay
  • Lucas L. Geyer
  • Yundai Chen
Part of the Contemporary Medical Imaging book series (CMI)


Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with stent placement is a standard therapy for myocardial revascularization in patients with hemodynamically significant coronary artery disease (CAD). Coronary CT angiography (CCTA) as a noninvasive imaging modality allows for a reliable evaluation of coronary stent patency and has been incorporated into current accepted guidelines. However, due to detrimental artifacts caused by stents, the role of CCTA as an appropriate evaluation tool remains controversial. In this chapter, the clinical background, scanner technologies, acquisition protocols, image reconstruction techniques, and CCTA imaging findings of in-stent restenosis are discussed.


Coronary artery disease Coronary CT angiography Stent evaluation Iterative reconstruction In-stent restenosis Stent fracture 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Smith SC Jr, Dove JT, Jacobs AK, et al. ACC/AHA guidelines for percutaneous coronary intervention (revision of the 1993 PTCA guidelines)-executive summary: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association task force on practice guidelines (Committee to revise the 1993 guidelines for percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty) endorsed by the Society for Cardiac Angiography and Interventions. Circulation. 2001;103:3019–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kim LK, Feldman DN, Swaminathan RV, et al. Rate of percutaneous coronary intervention for the management of acute coronary syndromes and stable coronary artery disease in the United States (2007 to 2011). Am J Cardiol. 2014;114:1003–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Raff GL, Abidov A, Achenbach S, et al. SCCT guidelines for the interpretation and reporting of coronary computed tomographic angiography. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2009;3:122–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ebersberger U, Tricarico F, Schoepf UJ, et al. CT evaluation of coronary artery stents with iterative image reconstruction: improvements in image quality and potential for radiation dose reduction. Eur Radiol. 2013;23:125–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Geyer LL, Glenn GR, De Cecco CN, et al. CT evaluation of small-diameter coronary artery stents: effect of an integrated circuit detector with iterative reconstruction. Radiology. 2015;276:706–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sun Z, Almutairi AM. Diagnostic accuracy of 64 multislice CT angiography in the assessment of coronary in-stent restenosis: a meta-analysis. Eur J Radiol. 2010;73:266–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sheth T, Dodd JD, Hoffmann U, et al. Coronary stent assessability by 64 slice multi-detector computed tomography. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2007;69:933–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chung SH, Kim YJ, Hur J, et al. Evaluation of coronary artery in-stent restenosis by 64-section computed tomography: factors affecting assessment and accurate diagnosis. J Thorac Imaging. 2010;25:57–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Eisentopf J, Achenbach S, Ulzheimer S, et al. Low-dose dual-source CT angiography with iterative reconstruction for coronary artery stent evaluation. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2013;6:458–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bamberg F, Dierks A, Nikolaou K, Reiser MF, Becker CR, Johnson TR. Metal artifact reduction by dual energy computed tomography using monoenergetic extrapolation. Eur Radiol. 2011;21:1424–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Meinel FG, Bischoff B, Zhang Q, Bamberg F, Reiser MF, Johnson TR. Metal artifact reduction by dual-energy computed tomography using energetic extrapolation: a systematically optimized protocol. Investig Radiol. 2012;47:406–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mangold S, Cannao PM, Schoepf UJ, et al. Impact of an advanced image-based monoenergetic reconstruction algorithm on coronary stent visualization using third generation dual-source dual-energy CT: a phantom study. Eur Radiol. 2016;26:1871–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chen MS, John JM, Chew DP, Lee DS, Ellis SG, Bhatt DL. Bare metal stent restenosis is not a benign clinical entity. Am Heart J. 2006;151:1260–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Palmerini T, Biondi-Zoccai G, Della Riva D, et al. Clinical outcomes with bioabsorbable polymer- versus durable polymer-based drug-eluting and bare-metal stents: evidence from a comprehensive network meta-analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;63:299–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cohen DJ, Van Hout B, Serruys PW, et al. Quality of life after PCI with drug-eluting stents or coronary-artery bypass surgery. N Engl J Med. 2011;364:1016–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Holmes DR Jr, Kereiakes DJ, Garg S, et al. Stent thrombosis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010;56:1357–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mehran R, Dangas G, Abizaid AS, et al. Angiographic patterns of in-stent restenosis: classification and implications for long-term outcome. Circulation. 1999;100:1872–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Park KW, Park JJ, Chae IH, et al. Clinical characteristics of coronary drug-eluting stent fracture: insights from a two-center des registry. J Korean Med Sci. 2011;26:53–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gassenmaier T, Petri N, Allmendinger T, et al. In vitro comparison of second- and third-generation dual-source CT for coronary stent visualization at different tube potentials. Acad Radiol. 2016;23:961–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gebhard C, Fiechter M, Fuchs TA, et al. Coronary artery stents: influence of adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction on image quality using 64-HDCT. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2013;14:969–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Suzuki S, Furui S, Kuwahara S, et al. Assessment of coronary stent in vitro on multislice computed tomography angiography: improved in-stent visibility by the use of 140-kV tube voltage. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2007;31:414–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sirineni GK, Kalra MK, Pottala K, Waldrop S, Syed M, Tigges S. Effect of contrast concentration, tube potential and reconstruction kernels on MDCT evaluation of coronary stents: an in vitro study. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2007;23:253–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Seifarth H, Raupach R, Schaller S, et al. Assessment of coronary artery stents using 16-slice MDCT angiography: evaluation of a dedicated reconstruction kernel and a noise reduction filter. Eur Radiol. 2005;15:721–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ulrich A, Burg MC, Raupach R, et al. Coronary stent imaging with dual-source CT: assessment of lumen visibility using different convolution kernels and postprocessing filters. Acta Radiol. 2015;56:42–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Geyer LL, Schoepf UJ, Meinel FG, et al. State of the art: iterative CT reconstruction techniques. Radiology. 2015;276:339–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kruger S, Mahnken AH, Sinha AM, et al. Multislice spiral computed tomography for the detection of coronary stent restenosis and patency. Int J Cardiol. 2003;89:167–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Maintz D, Grude M, Fallenberg EM, Heindel W, Fischbach R. Assessment of coronary arterial stents by multislice-CT angiography. Acta Radiol. 2003;44:597–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sun Z, Davidson R, Lin CH. Multi-detector row CT angiography in the assessment of coronary in-stent restenosis: a systematic review. Eur J Radiol. 2009;69:489–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Humana Press 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Junjie Yang
    • 1
    • 2
  • Christian Tesche
    • 1
    • 3
  • Taylor M. Duguay
    • 1
  • Lucas L. Geyer
    • 1
    • 4
  • Yundai Chen
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Division of Cardiovascular Imaging, Department of Radiology and Radiological ScienceMedical University of South CarolinaCharlestonUSA
  2. 2.Department of CardiologyPeople’s Liberation Army General HospitalBeijingChina
  3. 3.Department of Cardiology and Intensive Care MedicineHeart Center Munich-BogenhausenMunichGermany
  4. 4.Institute for Clinical RadiologyLudwig-Maximilians-University Hospital MunichMunichGermany

Personalised recommendations