Ultra-high-resolution photon-counting detector CT in evaluating coronary stent patency: a comparison to invasive coronary angiography.

Publisher: Springer International Country of Publication: Germany NLM ID: 9114774 Publication Model: Print-Electronic Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 1432-1084 (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 09387994 NLM ISO Abbreviation: Eur Radiol Subsets: MEDLINE

Original Publication: Berlin : Springer International, c1991-

Coronary Angiography*/methods ; Stents* ; Computed Tomography Angiography*/methods ; Sensitivity and Specificity*; Humans ; Female ; Male ; Aged, 80 and over ; Prospective Studies ; Aged ; Photons

Objectives: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of ultra-high-resolution photon-counting detector CT angiography (UHR PCD-CTA) for evaluating coronary stent patency compared to invasive coronary angiography (ICA).
Methods: Consecutive, clinically referred patients with prior coronary stent implantation were prospectively enrolled between August 2022 and March 2023 and underwent UHR PCD-CTA (collimation, 120 × 0.2 mm). Two radiologists independently analyzed image quality of the in-stent lumen using a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 ("excellent") to 5 ("non-diagnostic"), and assessed all coronary stents for the presence of in-stent stenosis (≥ 50% lumen narrowing). The diagnostic accuracy of UHR PCD-CTA was determined, with ICA serving as the standard of reference.
Results: A total of 44 coronary stents in 18 participants (mean age, 83 years ± 6 [standard deviation]; 12 women) were included in the analysis. In 3/44 stents, both readers described image quality as non-diagnostic, whereas reader 2 noted a fourth stent to have non-diagnostic image quality. In comparison to ICA, UHR PCD-CTA demonstrated a sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of 100% (95% CI [confidence interval] 47.8, 100), 92.3% (95% CI 79.1, 98.4), and 93.2% (95% CI 81.3, 98.6) for reader 1 and 100% (95% CI 47.8, 100), 87.2% (95% CI 72.6, 95.7), and 88.6% (95% CI 75.4, 96.2) for reader 2, respectively. Both readers observed a 100% negative predictive value (36/36 stents and 34/34 stents). Stent patency inter-reader agreement was 90.1%, corresponding to a substantial Cohen's kappa value of 0.72.
Conclusions: UHR PCD-CTA enables non-invasive assessment of coronary stent patency with high image quality and diagnostic accuracy.
Clinical Relevance Statement: Ultra-high-resolution photon-counting detector CT angiography represents a reliable and non-invasive method for assessing coronary stent patency. Its high negative predictive value makes it a promising alternative over invasive coronary angiography for the rule-out of in-stent stenosis.
Key Points: • CT-based evaluation of coronary stent patency is limited by stent-induced artifacts and spatial resolution. • Ultra-high-resolution photon-counting detector CT accurately evaluates coronary stent patency compared to invasive coronary angiography. • Photon-counting detector CT represents a promising method for the non-invasive rule-out of in-stent stenosis.
(© 2024. The Author(s).)

Knuuti J, Wijns W, Saraste A et al (2019) ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of chronic coronary syndromes: the Task Force for the diagnosis and management of chronic coronary syndromes of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Eur Heart J 41(2020):407–477.
Members Writing Committee, Gulati M, Levy PD et al (2021) AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR guideline for the evaluation and diagnosis of chest pain: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr 16(2022):54–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcct.2021.11.009. (PMID: 10.1016/j.jcct.2021.11.009)
Members Writing Committee, Virani SS, Newby LK et al (2023) AHA/ACC/ACCP/ASPC/NLA/PCNA guideline for the management of patients with chronic coronary disease: a report of the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol 82(2023):833–955. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2023.04.003. (PMID: 10.1016/j.jacc.2023.04.003)
Eckert J, Renczes-Janetzko P, Schmidt M, Magedanz A, Voigtländer T, Schmermund A (2019) Coronary CT angiography (CCTA) using third-generation dual-source CT for ruling out in-stent restenosis. Clin Res Cardiol 108:402–410. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00392-018-1369-1. (PMID: 10.1007/s00392-018-1369-130187179)
Maintz D, Juergens K-U, Wichter T, Grude M, Heindel W, Fischbach R (2003) Imaging of coronary artery stents using multislice computed tomography: in vitro evaluation. Eur Radiol 13:830–835. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-002-1651-4. (PMID: 10.1007/s00330-002-1651-412664124)
Gassenmaier T, Petri N, Allmendinger T et al (2014) Next generation coronary CT angiography: in vitro evaluation of 27 coronary stents. Eur Radiol 24:2953–2961. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-014-3323-6. (PMID: 10.1007/s00330-014-3323-625038859)
de Graaf FR, Schuijf JD, van Velzen JE et al (2010) Diagnostic accuracy of 320-row multidetector computed tomography coronary angiography to noninvasively assess in-stent restenosis. Invest Radiol 45:331. https://doi.org/10.1097/RLI.0b013e3181dfa312. (PMID: 10.1097/RLI.0b013e3181dfa31220404736)
Ghekiere O, Salgado R, Buls N et al (2017) Image quality in coronary CT angiography: challenges and technical solutions. Br J Radiol 90:20160567. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20160567. (PMID: 10.1259/bjr.20160567280552535605061)
Kalisz K, Buethe J, Saboo SS, Abbara S, Halliburton S, Rajiah P (2016) Artifacts at cardiac CT: physics and solutions. Radiographics 36:2064–2083. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.2016160079. (PMID: 10.1148/rg.201616007927768543)
Hoffmann U, Ferencik M, Cury RC, Pena AJ (2006) Coronary CT angiography. J Nucl Med 47:797–806. (PMID: 16644750)
Flohr T, Petersilka M, Henning A, Ulzheimer S, Ferda J, Schmidt B (2020) Photon-counting CT review. Phys Med 79:126–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmp.2020.10.030. (PMID: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2020.10.03033249223)
Schuijf JD, Lima JAC, Boedeker KL et al (2022) CT imaging with ultra-high-resolution: opportunities for cardiovascular imaging in clinical practice. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr 16:388–396. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcct.2022.02.003. (PMID: 10.1016/j.jcct.2022.02.00335210183)
Decker JA, O’Doherty J, Schoepf UJ et al (2023) Stent imaging on a clinical dual-source photon-counting detector CT system-impact of luminal attenuation and sharp kernels on lumen visibility. Eur Radiol 33:2469–2477. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-022-09283-4. (PMID: 10.1007/s00330-022-09283-436462045)
Rajagopal JR, Farhadi F, Richards T et al (2021) Evaluation of coronary plaques and stents with conventional and photon-counting CT: benefits of high-resolution photon-counting CT. Radiol Cardiothorac Imaging 3:e210102. https://doi.org/10.1148/ryct.2021210102. (PMID: 10.1148/ryct.2021210102347787828581588)
Boccalini S, Si-Mohamed SA, Lacombe H et al (2022) First in-human results of computed tomography angiography for coronary stent assessment with a spectral photon counting computed tomography. Invest Radiol 57:212–221. https://doi.org/10.1097/RLI.0000000000000835. (PMID: 10.1097/RLI.000000000000083534711766)
Geering L, Sartoretti T, Mergen V et al (2023) First in-vivo coronary stent imaging with clinical ultra high resolution photon-counting CT. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr S1934–5925(23):00085. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcct.2023.02.009. (PMID: 10.1016/j.jcct.2023.02.009)
Hagar MT, Soschynski M, Saffar R et al (2023) Accuracy of ultrahigh-resolution photon-counting CT for detecting coronary artery disease in a high-risk population. Radiology. 307:e223305. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.223305. (PMID: 10.1148/radiol.22330537338354)
Byrne RA, Serruys PW, Baumbach A et al (2015) Report of a European Society of Cardiology-European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions task force on the evaluation of coronary stents in Europe: executive summary. Eur Heart J 36:2608–2620. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehv203. (PMID: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehv20326071600)
Blanke P, Weir-McCall JR, Achenbach S et al (2019) Computed tomography imaging in the context of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI)/transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR): an expert consensus document of the Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 12:1–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcmg.2018.12.003. (PMID: 10.1016/j.jcmg.2018.12.00330621986)
Boccalini S, den Harder AM, Witsenburg M et al (2018) Computed tomography image quality of aortic stents in patients with aortic coarctation: a multicentre evaluation. Eur Radiol Exp 2:17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41747-018-0046-5. (PMID: 10.1186/s41747-018-0046-5332527486091724)
McHugh ML (2012) Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic. Biochem Med (Zagreb) 22:276–282. (PMID: 10.11613/BM.2012.03123092060)
Genders TSS, Spronk S, Stijnen T, Steyerberg EW, Lesaffre E, Hunink MGM (2012) Methods for calculating sensitivity and specificity of clustered data: a tutorial. Radiology. 265:910–916. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.12120509. (PMID: 10.1148/radiol.1212050923093680)
Annoni AD, Andreini D, Pontone G et al (2018) CT angiography prior to TAVI procedure using third-generation scanner with wide volume coverage: feasibility, renal safety and diagnostic accuracy for coronary tree. Br J Radiol 91:20180196. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20180196. (PMID: 10.1259/bjr.20180196300047886350483)
Andreini D, Pontone G, Mushtaq S, Pepi M, Bartorelli AL (2010) Multidetector computed tomography coronary angiography for the assessment of coronary in-stent restenosis. Am J Cardiol 105:645–655. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjcard.2009.10.046. (PMID: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2009.10.04620185011)
Pack JD, Xu M, Wang G, Baskaran L, Min J, De Man B (2022) Cardiac CT blooming artifacts: clinical significance, root causes and potential solutions. Vis Comput Ind Biomed Art 5:29. https://doi.org/10.1186/s42492-022-00125-0. (PMID: 10.1186/s42492-022-00125-0364848869733770)
Mergen V, Eberhard M, Manka R, Euler A, Alkadhi H (2022) First in-human quantitative plaque characterization with ultra-high resolution coronary photon-counting CT angiography. Front Cardiovasc Med 9:981012. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcvm.2022.981012. (PMID: 10.3389/fcvm.2022.981012361480539485480)
Andreini D, Pontone G, Mushtaq S et al (2019) Diagnostic accuracy of coronary CT angiography performed in 100 consecutive patients with coronary stents using a whole-organ high-definition CT scanner. Int J Cardiol 274:382–387. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcard.2018.09.010. (PMID: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2018.09.01030219253)
Mahnken AH (2012) Imaging of coronary stents by coronary CT-angiography: current status. Curr Cardiovasc Imaging Rep 5:274–281. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12410-012-9155-3. (PMID: 10.1007/s12410-012-9155-3)
Allmendinger T, Nowak T, Flohr T et al (2022) Photon-counting detector CT-based vascular calcium removal algorithm: assessment using a cardiac motion phantom. Invest Radiol 57:399–405. https://doi.org/10.1097/RLI.0000000000000853. (PMID: 10.1097/RLI.0000000000000853350258349071027)
Mehran R, Mintz GS, Hong MK et al (1998) Validation of the in vivo intravascular ultrasound measurement of in-stent neointimal hyperplasia volumes. J Am Coll Cardiol 32:794–799. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0735-1097(98)00316-7. (PMID: 10.1016/s0735-1097(98)00316-79741529)

35-4223.10/20 Forum Gesundheitsstandort Baden-Württemberg

Keywords: Computed tomography angiography; Coronary artery disease; Stents; Vascular patency

Date Created: 20240104 Date Completed: 20240628 Latest Revision: 20240712

20240712

PMC11213791

10.1007/s00330-023-10516-3

38177617