ReviewJournal of thoracic disease2026
Photon-counting computed tomography in coronary artery bypass grafting planning and follow-up: a narrative review of a high-resolution adjunct to invasive angiography.
Review in Journal of thoracic disease, 2026. 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
Background and Objective: Conventional coronary imaging modalities used for coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) planning-such as invasive angiography and energy‑integrating detector computed tomography-are limited by spatial resolution, blooming artifacts, and reduced accuracy in heavily calcified or stented segments. Photon‑counting computed tomography (PC‑CT) introduces ultrahigh spatial resolution and spectral imaging capabilities that may overcome these limitations and improve preoperative and postoperative coronary assessment. This study aimed to evaluate the current technical capabilities and clinical performance of PC‑CT in CABG planning and postoperative graft assessment, and to explore its potential future applications as a non‑invasive imaging strategy. Methods: A targeted review of studies published between 2018 and 2025 was performed using search terms related to PC-CT, coronary imaging, plaque morphology, stent visualization, distal target assessment, and bypass graft imaging. Feasibility studies, phantom experiments, technical evaluations, single-center clinical studies, and early postoperative imaging reports were included based on relevance to surgical planning and graft assessment. Key Content and Findings: PC-CT demonstrated higher spatial resolution, reduced blooming artifacts, and improved contrast-to-noise performance compared with conventional computed tomography (CT). These features enhanced visualization of calcified lesions, distal coronary branches, and stented segments. Studies reported improved lumen assessment in calcified vessels, more detailed plaque characterization through spectral imaging, and clearer delineation of stent structures with correlation to invasive imaging. Early postoperative work showed detailed visualization of bypass conduits and anastomoses. Evidence remains limited by small sample sizes, single-center designs, and variability in acquisition and reconstruction protocols. Conclusions: PC-CT provides improved coronary imaging performance relevant to CABG planning and postoperative graft assessment. Its enhanced spatial resolution and spectral capabilities support more accurate evaluation of stenosis, plaque morphology, distal targets, and stented segments. Broader clinical validation, standardized protocols, and increased scanner availability are needed before PC-CT can be adopted as a routine non-invasive alternative to invasive angiography.
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.