ArticleThe international journal of cardiovascular imaging2026
Comparison of image quality between photon-counting detector CT and energy-integrating detector coronary CT angiography in heart transplant patients.
Article in The international journal of cardiovascular imaging, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Diagnostic performance and dose reduction of virtual noncontrast imaging in pediatric computed tomography urography.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aims to compare the image quality between photon-counting detector computed tomography (PCD-CT) and energy-integrating CT (EID-CT) for coronary artery visualization post-heart transplant (HTx) patients, using a paired comparison within one patient. Consecutive HTx patients who underwent both 3rd generation dual source EID-CT and ultra-high-resolution PCD-CT scans as part of routine clinical care, with a maximum interval of two years between scans were included. Image quality was assessed subjectively using a 5-point Likert scale and quantitatively with the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR). Coronary segments were scored for presence, stenosis degree, presence of artifacts, and plaque composition. Thirty patients were included (mean age 50 ± 17 years; 21 (70%) men). The median interval between scans was 17[12-24] months. The median calcium score was 9[0-51] on the EID-CT scan and 25[0-92] on the PCD-CT. On the PCD-CT, 90% of coronary segments were rated very good or excellent compared to 71% on EID-CT (p < 0.001). Fewer segments were absent or non-evaluable due to size with PCD-CT compared to EID-CT (30% vs. 34%; p < 0.001). PCD-CT identified more mixed plaques (11% vs. 3%, p < 0.001). SNR and CNR were significantly higher on PCD-CT (22.1 ± 6.1 and 27.8 ± 6.8, p < 0.001) than on EID-CT (14.3 ± 3.4 and 16.9 ± 3.6, p < 0.001). The CT dose index volume was 6 [5-10] mGy on EID-CT and 19 [14-21] mGy on PCD-CT (p < 0.001). Ultra-high-resolution PCD-CT improves image quality compared to EID-CT in HTx patients. With superior SNR and CNR, and fewer non-evaluable segments, PCD-CT offers enhanced coronary artery visualization, though at the cost of an increased radiation dose.
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.