Abstract：
OBJECTIVE: The purposes of this experimental study were to compare the quantitative and qualitative visibility of in-stent restenosis between conventional-resolution CT (CRCT) and ultra-high-resolution CT (U-HRCT) and to investigate the effects of the image reconstruction techniques on the visualization of in-stent restenosis.
METHODS: A vessel tube with non-calcified plaque in a 3.0-mm stent was scanned by using CRCT and U-HRCT at 4 stent directions (0, 30, 60, and 90 degrees) to the through-plane direction. Hybrid iterative reconstruction (HIR); model-based iterative reconstruction (MBIR); deep-learning-based reconstruction (DLR) were used as reconstruction methods. The lumen size was assessed using the full width at half maximum method, and image quality was visually evaluated using 4-point scale.
RESULTS: U-HRCT had the significantly wider lumen sizes and narrower stent strut thickness than CRCT in three types of the reconstruction methods (P < 0.01). The lumen sizes for U-HRCT with 90 degrees were narrower than those with the other angle directions regardless of the reconstruction methods. Visual score was significantly higher for U-HRCT than CRCT (3.2 ± 0.7 vs 2.0 ± 0.4, P < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: U-HRCT quantitatively and qualitatively provided better visualization of in-stent restenosis compared to CRCT. Image quality of U-HRCT may be affected by stent angle.
METHODS: A vessel tube with non-calcified plaque in a 3.0-mm stent was scanned by using CRCT and U-HRCT at 4 stent directions (0, 30, 60, and 90 degrees) to the through-plane direction. Hybrid iterative reconstruction (HIR); model-based iterative reconstruction (MBIR); deep-learning-based reconstruction (DLR) were used as reconstruction methods. The lumen size was assessed using the full width at half maximum method, and image quality was visually evaluated using 4-point scale.
RESULTS: U-HRCT had the significantly wider lumen sizes and narrower stent strut thickness than CRCT in three types of the reconstruction methods (P < 0.01). The lumen sizes for U-HRCT with 90 degrees were narrower than those with the other angle directions regardless of the reconstruction methods. Visual score was significantly higher for U-HRCT than CRCT (3.2 ± 0.7 vs 2.0 ± 0.4, P < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: U-HRCT quantitatively and qualitatively provided better visualization of in-stent restenosis compared to CRCT. Image quality of U-HRCT may be affected by stent angle.
摘要：
暂无翻译
