ArticleScientific reports2025
Multilayer and crushed stent visualization using photon- counting detector computed tomography - a proof of concept.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Photon‑counting detector CT (PCD‑CT) enables ultra‑high resolution (UHR, 0.2 mm) and may improve visualization of coronary stents compared with standard‑resolution (SR, 0.4 mm). In this ex- vivo study, we utilized a phantom heart model to simulate physiological attenuation and imitated the most common coronary bifurcation stenting techniques by creating multiple stent layers and stent- crush situations (single layer, crushed, two‑ and three‑layer). We compared UHR and SR PCD‑CT using Bv72 and Bv56 kernels. Objective endpoints were in‑stent lumen visibility, signal-to-noise ratio, and percentage change in stent attenuation; subjective image quality was rated on a 5‑point Likert scale (1 = excellent to 5 = non‑diagnostic). Depending on distribution, two‑sided t‑tests (mean ± SD) or Mann-Whitney U tests (median[IQR]) were applied, p‑values were Bonferroni‑corrected for multiple comparisons. In the pooled Crush cohort, UHR Bv72 improved in‑stent lumen visibility when compared with both, SR Bv72 (single-layer: 68.08 ± 4.30% vs. 79.03 ± 3.79%; crushed: 63.62 ± 4.97% vs. 74.73 ± 2.51%) and SR Bv56 (single-layer: 63.63 ± 4.47% vs. 79.03 ± 3.79%; crushed: 62.18 ± 3.55% vs. 74.73 ± 2.51%), all p < 0.01. The effect was even more pronounced in small stents (single‑layer 65.45 ± 1.91% (SR) vs. 77.11 ± 2.55% (UHR) and crushed 60.67 ± 2.67% vs. 74.00 ± 2.67%), both p < 0.01. Regarding subjective image quality, UHR was associated with better sharpness and less blooming, e.g., UHR Bv72 vs. SR Bv56 (multilayer: sharpness 1[0] vs. 2[0], blooming 1[0] vs. 2[0]; crush: sharpness 1[0] vs. 2[0], blooming 1[0] vs. 2[1]; all p ≤ 0.01) and UHR Bv72 vs. SR Bv72 (multilayer: sharpness 1[0] vs. 1[1], blooming 1[0] vs. 1[1]; crush: sharpness 1[0] vs. 1[1]; all p ≤ 0.05). These findings indicate that UHR PCD‑CT with Bv72 might enable assessment of complex stents in a phantom setting; even though clinical studies are warranted.
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.