Advertisement

European Radiology

, Volume 29, Issue 1, pp 161–167 | Cite as

Neointimal formation after carotid artery stenting: phantom and clinical evaluation of model-based iterative reconstruction (MBIR)

  • Kazushi YokomachiEmail author
  • Fuminari Tatsugami
  • Toru Higaki
  • Shinji Kume
  • Shigeyuki Sakamoto
  • Takahito Okazaki
  • Kaoru Kurisu
  • Yuko Nakamura
  • Yasutaka Baba
  • Makoto Iida
  • Kazuo Awai
Computed Tomography
  • 168 Downloads

Abstract

Objectives

The objective of this study was to investigate the usefulness of model-based iterative reconstruction (IR) for detecting neointimal formations after carotid artery stenting.

Methods

In a cervical phantom harbouring carotid artery stents, we placed simulated neointimal formations measuring 0.40, 0.60, 0.80 and 1.00 mm along the stent wall. The thickness of in-stent neointimal formations was measured on images reconstructed with filtered-back projection (FBP), hybrid IR (AIDR 3D), and model-based IR (FIRST). The clinical study included 43 patients with carotid stents. Cervical computed tomography (CT) images obtained on a 320-slice scanner were reconstructed with AIDR 3D and FIRST. Five blinded observers visually graded the likelihood of neointimal formations on AIDR 3D and AIDR 3D plus FIRST images. Carotid ultrasound images were the reference standard. We analysed results of visual grading by using a Jack-knife type receiver observer characteristics analysis software.

Results

In the phantom study, the difference between the measured and the true diameter of the neointimal formations was smaller on FIRST than FBP or AIDR 3D images. In the clinical study, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and accuracy of AIDR 3D were 58%, 88%, 83%, 67% and 73%, respectively. For AIDR 3D plus FIRST images they were 84%, 78%, 80%, 82% and 81%, respectively. The mean area under the curve was significantly higher on AIDR 3D plus FIRST than AIDR 3D images (0.82 vs 0.72; p < 0.01).

Conclusions

The model-based IR algorithm helped to improve diagnostic performance for the detection of neointimal formations after carotid artery stenting.

Key Points

• Neointimal formations can be visualised more accurately with model-based IR.

• Model-based IR improves the detection of neointimal formations after carotid artery stenting.

• Model-based IR is suitable for follow up after carotid artery stenting.

Keywords

CT angiography Carotid artery stenosis Image reconstruction Multidetector computed tomography Image quality enhancement 

Abbreviations

AIDR 3D

Three-dimensional adaptive iterative dose reduction

CAS

Carotid artery stenting

FBP

Filtered-back projection

FIRST

Forward-projected model-based iterative reconstruction solution

IR

Iterative reconstruction

Notes

Funding

The authors state that this work has not received any funding.

Compliance with ethical standards

Guarantor

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Kazuo Awai.

Conflict of interest

Kazuo Awai, Professor of Hiroshima University, obtained a research grant from Canon Medical Systems. The other authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies, whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article.

Statistics and biometry

One of the authors (F.T.) who has skill for statistics performed the statistical analyses.

Informed consent

Written informed consent was obtained from all subjects in this study.

Ethical approval

Institutional Review Board approved this study.

Methodology

• retrospective

• diagnostic or prognostic study

• performed at one institution

References

  1. 1.
    North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial C, HJM B, Taylor DW et al (1991) Beneficial effect of carotid endarterectomy in symptomatic patients with high-grade carotid stenosis. N Engl J Med 325:445–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Walker MD, Marler JR, Goldstein M et al (1995) Endarterectomy for asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis. JAMA 273:1421–1428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Yadav JS, Wholey MH, Kuntz RE et al (2004) Protected carotid-artery stenting versus endarterectomy in high-risk patients. N Engl J Med 351:1493–1501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Groschel K, Riecker A, Schulz JB, Ernemann U, Kastrup A (2005) Systematic review of early recurrent stenosis after carotid angioplasty and stenting. Stroke 36:367–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lal BK, Beach KW, Roubin GS et al (2012) Restenosis after carotid artery stenting and endarterectomy: a secondary analysis of CREST, a randomised controlled trial. Lancet Neurol 11:755–763CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bonati LH, Dobson J, Featherstone RL et al (2015) Long-term outcomes after stenting versus endarterectomy for treatment of symptomatic carotid stenosis: the International Carotid Stenting Study (ICSS) randomised trial. Lancet 385:529–538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dahl JJ, Dumont DM, Allen JD, Miller EM, Trahey GE (2009) Acoustic radiation force impulse imaging for noninvasive characterization of carotid artery atherosclerotic plaques: a feasibility study. Ultrasound Med Biol 35:707–716CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rongling L, Bruce B, Patricia A (1994) B-mode-detected carotid artery plaque in a general population. Stroke 25:2377–2383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Geyer LL, Schoepf UJ, Meinel FG et al (2015) State of the art: iterative CT reconstruction techniques. Radiology 276:339–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nelson RC, Feuerlein S, Boll DT (2011) New iterative reconstruction techniques for cardiovascular computed tomography: how do they work, and what are the advantages and disadvantages? J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr 5:286–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fujita M, Higaki T, Awaya Y et al (2017) Lung cancer screening with ultra-low dose CT using full iterative reconstruction. Jpn J Radiol 35:179–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tatsugami F, Higaki T, Sakane H et al (2017) Coronary artery stent evaluation with model-based iterative reconstruction at coronary CT angiography. Acad Radiol 24:975–981CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hillis SL, Berbaum KS, Metz CE (2008) Recent developments in the Dorfman-Berbaum-Metz procedure for multireader ROC study analysis. Acad Radiol 15:647–661CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bonati LH, Ederle J, McCabe DJ et al (2009) Long-term risk of carotid restenosis in patients randomly assigned to endovascular treatment or endarterectomy in the Carotid and Vertebral Artery Transluminal Angioplasty Study (CAVATAS): long-term follow-up of a randomised trial. Lancet Neurol 8:908–917CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Arquizan C, Trinquart L, Touboul P-J et al (2011) Restenosis is more frequent after carotid stenting than after endarterectomy. Stroke 42:1015–1020CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Silver FL, Mackey A, Clark WM et al (2011) Safety of stenting and endarterectomy by symptomatic status in the Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy Versus Stenting Trial (CREST). Stroke 42:675–680CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hou Y, Xu S, Guo W, Vembar M, Guo Q (2012) The optimal dose reduction level using iterative reconstruction with prospective ECG-triggered coronary CTA using 256-slice MDCT. Eur J Radiol 81:3905–3911CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tomizawa N, Nojo T, Akahane M, Torigoe R, Kiryu S, Ohtomo K (2012) Adaptive iterative dose reduction in coronary CT angiography using 320-row CT: assessment of radiation dose reduction and image quality. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr 6:318–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kazushi Yokomachi
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author return OK on get
  • Fuminari Tatsugami
    • 2
  • Toru Higaki
    • 2
  • Shinji Kume
    • 1
  • Shigeyuki Sakamoto
    • 3
  • Takahito Okazaki
    • 3
  • Kaoru Kurisu
    • 3
  • Yuko Nakamura
    • 2
  • Yasutaka Baba
    • 2
  • Makoto Iida
    • 2
  • Kazuo Awai
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of RadiologyHiroshima University HospitalHiroshimaJapan
  2. 2.Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Graduate School of Biomedical and Health SciencesHiroshima UniversityHiroshimaJapan
  3. 3.Department of NeurosurgeryHiroshima University HospitalHiroshimaJapan

Personalised recommendations