ArticleThe international journal of cardiovascular imaging2016
Assessment of coronary in-stent restenosis: value of subtraction coronary computed tomography angiography.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 28 citations in OpenAlex.
- Scoring model to predict low image quality of drug-eluting stent evaluated by computed tomography coronary angiography.Heart and vessels · 2022Article
- lncRNA-MALAT1 expression in patients with coronary atherosclerosis and its predictive value for in-stent restenosis.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2020Article
- Initial exploration of coronary stent image subtraction using dual-layer spectral CT.European radiology · 2019Article
- Modified Subtraction Coronary CT Angiography with a Two-Breathhold Technique: Image Quality and Diagnostic Accuracy in Patients with Coronary Calcifications.Korean journal of radiology · 2019Article
- 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 · 2019Article
- Subtraction CT angiography improves evaluation of significant coronary artery disease in patients with severe calcifications or stents-the C-Sub 320 multicenter trial.European radiology · 2018Article
- Inter-observer agreement of the Coronary Artery Disease Reporting and Data System (CAD-RADSPolish journal of radiology · 2018Article
- Cardiovascular imaging 2016 in the International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2017Article
- Diagnostic accuracy of a modified subtraction coronary CT angiography method with short breath-holding time: a feasibility study.The British journal of radiology · 2016Article
- Cardiovascular imaging 2015 in the International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.