64-slice computed tomography assessment of coronary artery stents: A phantom study

A. H. Mahnken, G. Mühlenbruch, T. Seyfarth, T. Flohr, S. Stanzel, J. E. Wildberger, R. W. Günther, A. Kuettner

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

40 Scopus citations

Abstract

Purpose: To compare the use of a new 64-slice computed tomography (CT) scanner with 16-slice CT in the visualization of coronary artery stent lumen. Material and Methods: Eight different coronary artery stents, each with a diameter of 3 mm, were placed in a static chest phantom. The phantom was positioned in the CT gantry at an angle of 0° and 45° towards the z-axis and examined with both a 64-slice and a 16-slice CT scanner. Effective slice thickness was 0.6 mm with 64-slice CT and 1 mm with 16-slice CT. A reconstruction increment of 0.3 mm was applied in both scanners. Image quality was assessed visually using a 5-point grading scale. Stent diameters were measured and compared using paired Wilcoxon tests. Results: Artificial lumen reduction was significantly less with 64-slice than with 16-slice CT. Average visible stent lumen was 53.4% using 64-slice CT and 47.5% with 16-slice MSCT. Most severe artifacts were seen in stents with radiopaque markers. Using 64-slice CT, image noise increased by approximately 30% due to thinner slice thickness. Conclusion: Improved spatial resolution of 64-slice CT resulted in superior assessment of coronary artery stent lumen compared to 16-slice CT. However, a relevant part of the stent lumen is still not assessable with multi-slice CT.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)36-42
Number of pages7
JournalActa Radiologica
Volume47
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - 1 Feb 2006
Externally publishedYes

Keywords

  • Angiography
  • CT-computed tomography (CT)
  • Coronary vessels
  • Multi-detector row-coronary vessels
  • Stents and prostheses-computed tomography CT

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of '64-slice computed tomography assessment of coronary artery stents: A phantom study'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this