Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

First in vivo head-to-head comparison of high-definition versus standard-definition stent imaging with 64-slice computed tomography

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

Abstract

The aim of this study was to compare image quality characteristics from 64-slice high definition (HDCT) versus 64-slice standard definition CT (SDCT) for coronary stent imaging. In twenty-five stents of 14 patients, undergoing contrast-enhanced CCTA both on 64-slice SDCT (LightSpeedVCT, GE Healthcare) and HDCT (Discovery HD750, GE Healthcare), radiation dose, contrast, noise and stent characteristics were assessed. Two blinded observers graded stent image quality (score 1 = no, 2 = mild, 3 = moderate, and 4 = severe artefacts). All scans were reconstructed with increasing contributions of adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction (ASIR) blending (0, 20, 40, 60, 80 and 100 %). Image quality was significantly superior in HDCT versus SDCT (score 1.7 ± 0.5 vs. 2.7 ± 0.7; p < 0.05). Image noise was significantly higher in HDCT compared to SDCT irrespective of ASIR contributions (p < 0.05). Addition of 40 % ASIR or more reduced image noise significantly in both HDCT and SDCT. In HDCT in-stent luminal attenuation was significantly lower and mean measured in-stent luminal diameter was significantly larger (1.2 ± 0.4 mm vs. 0.8 ± 0.4 mm; p < 0.05) compared to SDCT. Radiation dose from HDCT was comparable to SDCT (1.8 ± 0.7 mSv vs. 1.7 ± 0.7 mSv; p = ns). Use of HDCT for coronary stent imaging reduces partial volume artefacts from stents yielding improved image quality versus SDCT at a comparable radiation dose.

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
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Schroeder S, Achenbach S, Bengel F, Burgstahler C, Cademartiri F, de Feyter P, George R, Kaufmann P, Kopp AF, Knuuti J, Ropers D, Schuijf J, Tops LF, Bax JJ (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(4):531–556

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Herzog BA, Husmann L, Burkhard N, Gaemperli O, Valenta I, Tatsugami F, Wyss CA, Landmesser U, Kaufmann PA (2008) Accuracy of low-dose computed tomography coronary angiography using prospective electrocardiogram-triggering: first clinical experience. Eur Heart J 29(24):3037–3042

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Kruger S, Mahnken AH, Sinha AM, Borghans A, Dedden K, Hoffmann R, Hanrath P (2003) Multislice spiral computed tomography for the detection of coronary stent restenosis and patency. Int J Cardiol 89(2–3):167–172

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Maintz D, Juergens KU, Wichter T, Grude M, Heindel W, Fischbach R (2003) Imaging of coronary artery stents using multislice computed tomography: in vitro evaluation. Eur Radiol 13(4):830–835

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Morice MC, Colombo A, Meier B, Serruys P, Tamburino C, Guagliumi G, Sousa E, Stoll HP (2006) Sirolimus- vs paclitaxel-eluting stents in de novo coronary artery lesions: the REALITY trial: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 295(8):895–904

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Husmann L, Valenta I, Gaemperli O, Adda O, Treyer V, Wyss CA, Veit-Haibach P, Tatsugami F, von Schulthess GK, Kaufmann PA (2008) Feasibility of low-dose coronary CT angiography: first experience with prospective ECG-gating. Eur Heart J 29(2):191–197

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Kazakauskaite E, Husmann L, Stehli J, Fuchs T, Fiechter M, Klaeser B, Ghadri JR, Gebhard C, Gaemperli O, Kaufmann PA (2012) Image quality in low-dose coronary computed tomography angiography with a new high-definition CT scanner. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 29:471–477

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Min JK, Swaminathan RV, Vass M, Gallagher S, Weinsaft JW (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(4):246–251

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Yang WJ, Zhang H, Xiao H, Li JY, Liu Y, Pan ZL, Chen KM (2012) High-definition computed tomography for coronary artery stents imaging compared with standard-definition 64-row multidectector computed tomography: an initial in vivo study. J Comput Assist Tomogr 36(3):295–300

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Andreini D, Pontone G, Mushtaq S, Bartorelli AL, Bertella E, Trabattoni D, Montorsi P, Galli S, Foti C, Annoni A, Bovis F, Ballerini G, Agostoni P, Fiorentini C, Pepi M (2012) Coronary in-stent restenosis: assessment with CT coronary angiography. Radiology 265(2):410–417

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Husmann L, Schepis T, Scheffel H, Gaemperli O, Leschka S, Valenta I, Koepfli P, Desbiolles L, Stolzmann P, Marincek B, Alkadhi H, Kaufmann PA (2008) Comparison of diagnostic accuracy of 64-slice computed tomography coronary angiography in patients with low, intermediate, and high cardiovascular risk. Acad Radiol 15(4):452–461

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Buechel RR, Husmann L, Herzog BA, Pazhenkottil AP, Nkoulou R, Ghadri JR, Treyer V, von Schulthess P, Kaufmann PA (2011) Low-dose computed tomography coronary angiography with prospective electrocardiogram triggering: feasibility in a large population. J Am Coll Cardiol 57(3):332–336

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Pazhenkottil AP, Husmann L, Buechel RR, Herzog BA, Nkoulou R, Burger IA, Vetterli A, Valenta I, Ghadri JR, von Schulthess P, Kaufmann PA (2010) Validation of a new contrast material protocol adapted to body surface area for optimized low-dose CT coronary angiography with prospective ECG-triggering. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 26(5):591–597

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Tatsugami F, Husmann L, Herzog BA, Burkhard N, Valenta I, Gaemperli O, Kaufmann PA (2009) Evaluation of a body mass index-adapted protocol for low-dose 64-MDCT coronary angiography with prospective ECG triggering. AJR Am J Roentgenol 192(3):635–638

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Fuchs TA, Fiechter M, Gebhard C, Stehli J, Ghadri JR, Kazakauskaite E, Herzog BA, Husmann L, Gaemperli O, Kaufmann PA (2012) CT coronary angiography: impact of adapted statistical iterative reconstruction (ASIR) on coronary stenosis and plaque composition analysis. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 29:719–724

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Leipsic J, Labounty TM, Heilbron B, Min JK, Mancini GB, Lin FY, Taylor C, Dunning A, Earls JP (2010) Adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction: assessment of image noise and image quality in coronary CT angiography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 195(3):649–654

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Gebhard C, Fiechter M, Fuchs TA, Ghadri JR, Herzog BA, Kuhn F, Stehli J, Muller E, Kazakauskaite E, Gaemperli O, Kaufmann PA (2012) Coronary artery calcium scoring: Influence of adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction using 64-MDCT. Int J Cardiol. doi:10.1016/j.ijcard.2012.08.003

  18. Ghadri JR, Kuest SM, Goetti R, Fiechter M, Pazhenkottil AP, Nkoulou RN, Kuhn FP, Pietsch C, von Schulthess P, Gaemperli O, Templin C, Kaufmann PA (2012) Image quality and radiation dose comparison of prospectively triggered low-dose CCTA: 128-slice dual-source high-pitch spiral versus 64-slice single-source sequential acquisition. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 28(5):1217–1225

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Schepis T, Koepfli P, Leschka S, Desbiolles L, Husmann L, Gaemperli O, Eberli FR, Wildermuth S, Marincek B, Luscher TF, Alkadhi H, Kaufmann PA (2007) Coronary artery stent geometry and in-stent contrast attenuation with 64-slice computed tomography. Eur Radiol 17(6):1464–1473

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) An application of hierarchical kappa-type statistics in the assessment of majority agreement among multiple observers. Biometrics 33(2):363–374

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Gebhard C, Fiechter M, Fuchs TA, Stehli J, Muller E, Stahli BE, Gebhard CE, Ghadri JR, Klaeser B, Gaemperli O, Kaufmann PA (2013) Coronary artery stents: influence of adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction on image quality using 64-HDCT. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. doi:10.1093/ehjci/jet013

  22. Kaufmann PA, Knuuti J (2011) Ionizing radiation risks of cardiac imaging: estimates of the immeasurable. Eur Heart J 32(3):269–271

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Herzog BA, Wyss CA, Husmann L, Gaemperli O, Valenta I, Treyer V, Landmesser U, Kaufmann PA (2009) First head-to-head comparison of effective radiation dose from low-dose 64-slice CT with prospective ECG-triggering versus invasive coronary angiography. Heart 95(20):1656–1661

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Husmann L, Herzog BA, Gaemperli O, Tatsugami F, Burkhard N, Valenta I, Veit-Haibach P, Wyss CA, Landmesser U, Kaufmann PA (2009) Diagnostic accuracy of computed tomography coronary angiography and evaluation of stress-only single-photon emission computed tomography/computed tomography hybrid imaging: comparison of prospective electrocardiogram-triggering versus retrospective gating. Eur Heart J 30(5):600–607

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Dewey M, Zimmermann E, Deissenrieder F, Laule M, Dubel HP, Schlattmann P, Knebel F, Rutsch W, Hamm B (2009) Noninvasive coronary angiography by 320-row computed tomography with lower radiation exposure and maintained diagnostic accuracy: comparison of results with cardiac catheterization in a head-to-head pilot investigation. Circulation 120(10):867–875

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Maintz D, Seifarth H, Raupach R, Flohr T, Rink M, Sommer T, Ozgun M, Heindel W, Fischbach R (2006) 64-slice multidetector coronary CT angiography: in vitro evaluation of 68 different stents. Eur Radiol 16(4):818–826

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Manghat N, Van Lingen R, Hewson P, Syed F, Kakani N, Cox I, Roobottom C, Morgan-Hughes G (2008) Usefulness of 64-detector row computed tomography for evaluation of intracoronary stents in symptomatic patients with suspected in-stent restenosis. Am J Cardiol 101(11):1567–1573

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Cademartiri F, Maffie E, Palumbo A, Martini C, Aldrovandi A, Ardissino D, Brambilla V, Coruzzi P, Mollet NR, Krestin GP, de Feyter PJ (2010) CT coronary angiography for the follow-up of coronary stent. Acta Biomed 81(2):87–93

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Wijns W, Kolh P, Danchin N, Di Mario C, Falk V, Folliguet T, Garg S, Huber K, James S, Knuuti J, Lopez-Sendon J, Marco J, Menicanti L, Ostojic M, Piepoli MF, Pirlet C, Pomar JL, Reifart N, Ribichini FL, Schalij MJ, Sergeant P, Serruys PW, Silber S, Sousa Uva M, Taggart D (2010) Guidelines on myocardial revascularization. Eur Heart J 31(20):2501–2555

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The study was supported by grants from the Swiss National Science Foundation to PAK and MF. We also gratefully acknowledge the financial support of the Swiss Life Jubiläumsstiftung. Furthermore, we thank our technicians, Ennio Mueller and Gentian Cermjani for their excellent technical support.

Conflict of interest

None declared.

Ethical Standard

All procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975 as revised in 2008 (5). Informed consent was obtained from all patients for being included in the study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Cardiac Imaging, University Hospital Zurich, Ramistrasse 100, NUK C 42, 8091, Zurich, Switzerland

    Tobias A. Fuchs, Julia Stehli, Michael Fiechter, Svetlana Dougoud, Bert-Ram Sah, Cathérine Gebhard, Sacha Bull, Oliver Gaemperli & Philipp A. Kaufmann

  2. Zurich Center for Integrative Human Physiology (ZIHP), University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland

    Philipp A. Kaufmann

Authors
  1. Tobias A. Fuchs
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Julia Stehli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Michael Fiechter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Svetlana Dougoud
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Bert-Ram Sah
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Cathérine Gebhard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Sacha Bull
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Oliver Gaemperli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Philipp A. Kaufmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Philipp A. Kaufmann.

Additional information

Tobias A. Fuchs and Julia Stehli contributed equally to this work.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Fuchs, T.A., Stehli, J., Fiechter, M. et al. First in vivo head-to-head comparison of high-definition versus standard-definition stent imaging with 64-slice computed tomography. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 29, 1409–1416 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10554-013-0225-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10554-013-0225-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation