Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22777622›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology2013

CT evaluation of coronary artery stents with iterative image reconstruction: improvements in image quality and potential for radiation dose reduction.

Ullrich Ebersberger, Francesco Tricarico, U Joseph Schoepf, Philipp Blanke, J Reid Spears, Garrett W Rowe, William T Halligan, Thomas Henzler, Fabian Bamberg, Alexander W Leber and 2 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European radiology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
13.7field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

41 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 99 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors at 8 institutions in 4 countries.

Ullrich EbersbergerDepartment of Radiology and Radiological Science and Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA.
Francesco Tricarico
U Joseph Schoepf
Philipp Blanke
J Reid Spears
Garrett W Rowe
William T Halligan
Thomas Henzler
Fabian Bamberg
Alexander W Leber
Ellen Hoffmann
Paul Apfaltrer
Medical University of South Carolina · USHeidelberg University · DELudwig-Maximilians-Universität München · DEMünchen Klinik Bogenhausen · DESunnybrook Health Science Centre · CAUniversità Cattolica del Sacro Cuore · ITUniversity Hospital Heidelberg · DEUniversity Medical Center Freiburg · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesComparison of coronary artery stent assessment with cardiac CT angiography (cCTA) using traditional filtered back projection (FBP) and sinogram affirmed iterative reconstruction (SAFIRE), in both full- and half-radiation dose image data.

methodsDual-source cCTA studies of 37 implanted stents were reconstructed at full- and half-radiation dose with FBP and SAFIRE. Half-dose data were based on projections from one DSCT detector. In-stent noise, signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), and stent-lumen attenuation increase ratio (SAIR) were measured and image quality graded. Stent volumes were measured to gauge severity of beam hardening artefacts.

resultsFull-dose SAFIRE reconstructions were superior to full-dose FBP vis-à-vis in-stent noise (21.2 ± 6.6 vs. 35.7 ± 17.5; P < 0.05), SNR (22.1 ± 8.6 vs. 14.3 ± 6.7; P < 0.05), SAIR (19.6 ± 17.6 vs. 33.4 ± 20.4%; P < 0.05), and image quality (4.2 ± 0.86 vs. 3.5 ± 1.0; P < 0.05). Stent volumes were lower measured with SAFIRE (119.9 ± 53.7 vs. 129.8 ± 65.0 mm(3); P > 0.05). Comparing half-dose SAFIRE with full-dose FBP, in-stent noise (26.7 ± 13.0 vs. 35.7 ± 17.5; P < 0.05) and SNR (18.2 ± 6.9 vs. 14.3 ± 6.7; P < 0.05) improved significantly. SAIR (31.6 ± 24.3 vs. 33.4 ± 20.4%; P > 0.05), stent volume (129.6 ± 57.3 vs. 129.8 ± 65.0 mm(3); P > 0.05), and image quality (3.5 ± 1.0 vs. 3.7 ± 1.1; P > 0.05) did not differ. Radiation dose decreased from 8.7 ± 5.2 to 4.3 ± 2.6 mSv.

conclusionsIterative reconstruction significantly improves imaging of coronary artery stents by CT compared with FBP, even with half-radiation-dose data.

Indexed as

Radiation DosageStentsAgedArtifactsCardiac-Gated Imaging TechniquesChi-Square DistributionComorbidityContrast MediaCoronary AngiographyCoronary DiseaseFemaleHumansIohexolMaleRadiographic Image Interpretation, Computer-AssistedRetrospective StudiesContrast MediaIohexoliopromide

Identifiers

PMID22777622
OpenAlexW2010587287

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.