Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26662268›Full record

ArticleThe international journal of cardiovascular imaging2016

Assessment of coronary in-stent restenosis: value of subtraction coronary computed tomography angiography.

Makoto Amanuma, Taskeshi Kondo, Tomonari Sano, Tomoya Takayanagi, Hideyuki Matsutani, Takako Sekine, Takehiro Arai, Hitomi Morita, Kazumasa Ishizaka, Kazumasa Arakita and 2 more

Abstract readComparative StudyEvaluation Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The international journal of cardiovascular imaging, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Coronary CT angiography (CCTA) using third-generation dual-source CT for ruling out in-stent restenosis.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2019
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Cardiovascular imaging 2016 in the International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2017
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Cardiovascular imaging 2015 in the International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2016
    Review
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 2 institutions in 1 country.

Makoto AmanumaDepartment of Radiology, Takase Clinic, 885-2 Minami-Orui, Takasaki, Gunma, 370-0036, Japan. ten@gunma-u.ac.jp.
Taskeshi KondoDepartment of Cardiology, Jukokai Central Hospital, Miyoshi, Japan.
Tomonari SanoDepartment of Radiation Technology, Takase Clinic, Takasaki, Japan.
Tomoya TakayanagiDepartment of Radiation Technology, Takase Clinic, Takasaki, Japan.
Hideyuki MatsutaniDepartment of Radiation Technology, Takase Clinic, Takasaki, Japan.
Takako SekineDepartment of Radiation Technology, Takase Clinic, Takasaki, Japan.
Takehiro AraiDepartment of Radiation Technology, Takase Clinic, Takasaki, Japan.
Hitomi MoritaDepartment of Radiation Technology, Takase Clinic, Takasaki, Japan.
Kazumasa IshizakaDepartment of Radiation Technology, Takase Clinic, Takasaki, Japan.
Kazumasa ArakitaClinical Application Research Center, Toshiba Medical Corporation, Ōtawara, Japan.
Akiko IwasaApplication Group of CT Sales Department, Toshiba Medical Corporation, Ōtawara, Japan.
Shinichi TakaseDepartment of Cardiology, Takase Clinic, Takasaki, Japan.
Toshiba (Japan) · JPTokai Central Hospital · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In conventional coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA), metal artifacts are frequently observed where stents are located, making it difficult to evaluate in-stent restenosis. This study was conducted to investigate whether subtraction CCTA can improve diagnostic accuracy in the evaluation of in-stent restenosis. Subtraction CCTA was performed using 320-row CT in 398 patients with previously placed stents who were able to hold their breath for 25 s and in whom mid-diastolic prospective one-beat scanning was possible. Among these patients, 126 patients (94 men and 32 women, age 74 ± 8 years) with 370 stents who also underwent invasive coronary angiography (ICA) were selected as the subjects of this study. With ICA findings considered the gold standard, conventional CCTA was compared against subtraction CCTA to determine whether subtraction can improve diagnostic accuracy in the evaluation of in-stent restenosis. When non-assessable stents were considered to be stenotic, the diagnostic accuracy in the evaluation of in-stent restenosis was 62.7 % for conventional CCTA and 89.5 % for subtraction CCTA. When the non-assessable stents were considered to be non-stenotic the diagnostic accuracy was 90.3 % for conventional CCTA and 94.31 % for subtraction CCTA. When subtraction CCTA was used to evaluate only the 138 stents that were judged to be non-assessable by conventional CCTA, 116 of these stents were judged to be assessable, and the findings for 109 of them agreed with those obtained by ICA. Even for stents with an internal diameter of 2.5-3 mm, the lumen can be evaluated in more than 80 % of patients. Subtraction CCTA provides significantly higher diagnostic accuracy than conventional CCTA in the evaluation of in-stent restenosis.

Indexed as

Angiography, Digital SubtractionComputed Tomography AngiographyMultidetector Computed TomographyStentsAgedAged, 80 and overArtifactsCoronary AngiographyCoronary Artery DiseaseCoronary RestenosisCoronary VesselsFemaleHumansMalePercutaneous Coronary InterventionPredictive Value of TestsComputed tomographyCoronary CTAIn-stent restenosisMetallic stentSubtraction

Identifiers

PMID26662268
OpenAlexW2208557659

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.