In-stent area stenosis on 64-slice multi-detector computed tomography coronary angiography: optimal cutoff value for minimum lumen cross-sectional area of coronary stents compared with intravascular ultrasound
- 133 Downloads
We aimed to prospectively assess the optimal cutoff value for a minimum lumen cross-sectional area (CSA) on a 64-slice multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) compared with an intravascular ultrasound (IVUS). In 39 patients with 43 stents, the minimum lumen diameter, stent diameter, diameter stenosis, minimum lumen CSA, stent CSA, and area stenosis at the narrowest point were measured independently on 64-slice MDCT and IVUS images. For the assessment of diameter and CSA, 64-slice MDCT showed good correlations with IVUS (r = 0.82 for minimum lumen diameter, r = 0.66 for stent diameter, r = 0.79 for minimum lumen CSA, and r = 0.75 for stent CSA, respectively, P < 0.0001). For the assessment of diameter and area stenoses, a 64-slice MDCT showed good correlations with IVUS (r = 0.89 and 0.91, respectively, P < 0.0001). The overall sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value to detect in-stent area restenosis (≥50 % area stenosis) of a 64-slice MDCT were 77, 100, 100, and 91 %, respectively. The cutoff value of a 64-slice MDCT, determined by receiver operator characteristic (ROC) analysis, was 5.0 mm2 with 76.5 % sensitivity and 92.3 % specificity for significant in-stent area restenosis; the area under the ROC curve was 0.902 (P < 0.0001). A good correlation was found between a 64-slice MDCT and the IVUS, regarding the assessment of diameter and area stenoses of coronary stents in selected patients implanted with stents of more than 3 mm in diameter. Optimal cutoff value for the minimum lumen CSA of coronary stents on the 64-slice MDCT is 5 mm2 to predict a CSA of 4 mm2 on IVUS.
KeywordsIn-stent restenosis Intravascular ultrasound Multidetector computed tomography
This work was supported by a research grant from Novartis Korea (2009-8-0075).
Conflict of interest
There are no conflicts of interest regarding this manuscript.
- 12.Van Mieghem CA, Cademartiri F, Mollet NR et al (2006) Multislice spiral computed tomography for the evaluation of stent patency after left main coronary artery stenting: a comparison with conventional coronary angiography and intravascular ultrasound. Circulation 114(7):645–653PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 13.Andreini D, Pontone G, Bartorelli AL et al (2009) Comparison of feasibility and diagnostic accuracy of 64-slice multidetector computed tomographic coronary angiography versus invasive coronary angiography versus intravascular ultrasound for evaluation of in-stent restenosis. Am J Cardiol 103(10):1349–1358PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 14.Mintz GS, Nissen SE, Anderson WD et al (2001) American College of Cardiology Clinical Expert Consensus Document on Standards for Acquisition, Measurement and Reporting of Intravascular Ultrasound Studies (IVUS). A report of the American College of Cardiology Task Force on Clinical Expert Consensus Documents. J Am Coll Cardiol 37(5):1478–1492PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 17.Voros S, Rinehart S, Qian Z et al (2011) Prospective validation of standardized, 3-dimensional, quantitative coronary computed tomographic plaque measurements using radiofrequency backscatter intravascular ultrasound as reference standard in intermediate coronary arterial lesions: results from the ATLANTA (assessment of tissue characteristics, lesion morphology, and hemodynamics by angiography with fractional flow reserve, intravascular ultrasound and virtual histology, and noninvasive computed tomography in atherosclerotic plaques) I study. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 4(2):198–208PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 19.Smith SC Jr, Feldman TE, Hirshfeld JW Jr et al (2006) ACC/AHA/SCAI 2005 Guideline Update for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention-Summary Article: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (ACC/AHA/SCAI Writing Committee to Update the 2001 Guidelines for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention). J Am Coll Cardiol 47(1):216–235PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar