ArticleBMC cardiovascular disorders2025
Comparative analysis of third-generation dual-energy CT and IVUS for in-stent restenosis detection.
Article in BMC cardiovascular disorders, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposePrior studies have assessed in-stent diameter restenosis (ISDR) in coronary arteries using 64-slice multidetector computed tomography coronary angiography (MDCT-CA) compared to invasive coronary angiography (ICA), which is the gold standard. This study aimed to compare the diagnostic accuracy of monoenergetic reconstruction using third-generation dual-source dual-energy CT (DSDECT) to that of ICA reconstruction via adjunctive intravascular ultrasonography (IVUS) for evaluating the ISDR.
methodsA total of 95 patients with previously stented coronary arteries (involving 110 stents) underwent DSDECT followed by ICA and IVUS within a 24-h timeframe. The specificities, sensitivities, negative predictive values (NPVs), and positive predictive values (PPVs) of the DSDECT and ICA were compared for confirming or excluding the ISDR using in-stent area restenosis (ISAR) and a minimal luminal area (MLA) ≤ 4.0 mm
resultsCompared with IVUS, the latest DSDECT demonstrated good sensitivity (100%), specificity (92.4%), and accuracy (96.1%) in detecting the ISDR. Our study highlights a limitation in assessability for stents with diameters < 3 mm, emphasizing the importance of careful patient selection. When employing an IVUS MLA of 4.0 mm
conclusionIn summary, when assessing stent patency, the latest DSDECT exhibits similar performance to coronary angiography and IVUS. Moreover, it offers noninvasiveness, cost-effectiveness, and ease of operation, which are advantageous characteristics. However, it is essential to consider limitations in patient eligibility, including factors such as prior cardiac devices, arrhythmias, and any degree of chronic renal insufficiency, which may impact CT imaging analysis. The 100% negative predictive value (NPV) of third-generation DSDECT reliably excludes in-stent restenosis (ISDR), potentially obviating invasive angiography in stable patients with patent stents.
trial registrationZU-IRB#3915/13-8-2017 Registered 13 August 2017, email: IRB_123@medicine.zu.edu.eg.
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.