4.5 Article

Ultra-High-Resolution Computed Tomography Angiography for Assessment of Coronary Artery Stenosis

期刊

CIRCULATION JOURNAL
卷 82, 期 7, 页码 1844-1851

出版社

JAPANESE CIRCULATION SOC
DOI: 10.1253/circj.CJ-17-1281

关键词

Calcified plaque; Coronary artery disease; Coronary computed tomography angiography; Spatial resolution; Stent

资金

  1. Toshiba Medical Systems Corporation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Limitations of coronary computed tomography (CTA) include false-positive stenosis at calcified lesions and assessment of in-stent patency. A prototype of ultra-high resolution computed tomography (U-HRCT: 1,792 channels and 0.25-mm slice thicknessx128 rows) with improved spatial resolution was developed. We assessed the diagnostic accuracy of coronary artery stenosis using U-HRCT. Methods and Results: Seventy-nine consecutive patients who underwent CTA using U-HRCT were prospectively included. Coronary artery stenosis was graded from 0 (no plaque) to 5 (occlusion). Stenosis grading at 102 calcified lesions was compared between U-HRCT and conventional-resolution CT (CRCT: 896 channels and 0.5-mm slice thicknessx320 rows). Median stenosis grading at calcified plaque was significantly improved on U-HRCT compared with CRCT (1; IQR, 1-2 vs. 2; IQR, 1-3, P<0.0001). Assessability of in-stent lumen was evaluated on U-HRCT in 79 stents. Stent strut thickness and luminal diameter were quantitatively compared between U-HRCT and CRCT. Of 79 stents, 83.5% were assessable on U-HRCT; 80% of stents with diameter 2.5 mm were regarded as assessable. On U-HRCT, stent struts were significantly thinner (median, 0.78 mm; IQR, 0.7-0.83 mm vs. 0.83 mm; IQR, 0.75-0.92 mm, P=0.0036), and in-stent lumens were significantly larger (median, 2.08 mm; IQR, 1.55-2.51 mm vs. 1.74 mm; IQR, 1.31-2.06 mm, P<0.0001) than on CRCT. Conclusions: U-HRCT with improved spatial resolution visualized calcified lesions with fewer artifacts. The in-stent lumen of stents with diameter >= 2.5 mm was assessable on U-HRCT.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据