ArticleEuropean radiology2026
In vivo coronary stent evaluation using photon-counting computed tomography: diagnostic performance.
Article in European radiology, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo assess the diagnostic performance of photon-counting computed tomography (PCCT) coronary angiography for the detection of in-stent restenosis (ISR) ≥ 50%, and image quality. MATERIALS AND
methods141 consecutive patients with coronary stents referred to coronary computed tomography angiography (CTA) were enrolled in this retrospective single-center study, using either PCCT or energy-integrating detector (EID)-CT. Image quality of the in-stent lumen (ISL) was graded using a 3-point scale as 2 = "excellent diagnostic", 1 = "limited diagnostic", or 0 = nondiagnostic. Coronary stents were assessed for ISR ≥ 50% compared to invasive coronary angiography (ICA), and quantitative image analysis was performed.
results176 stents in 70 patients (age 73.64 ± 12.6, 27.1% women) who underwent PCCT were included and compared to a control group of 71 patients (126 stents) who underwent EID-CT. Subjective image quality scores were higher in stents assessed by PCCT compared with EID-CT (p < 0.001). The rate of nondiagnostic stents was lower (1.1% vs 46.8%, p < 0.001) with PCCT, while the proportion of stents excellent image quality was higher (70.5% vs 23%, p < 0.001). The diagnostic accuracy of PCCT (per-patient) for the detection of ISR ≥ 50% was 90.48% (71.09, 97.35), sensitivity 100% (64.57, 100), specificity 85.71% (60.06, 95.99), PPV 77.78% (45.26, 93.68), NPV 100% (75.75, 100), and per-stent: accuracy 88.52% (78.16, 94.33), sensitivity 100% (70.08, 100), specificity 86.54% (74.73, 93.32), PPV 56.25% (33.18, 76.90) and NPV 100% (92.13, 100). True positive ISR ≥ 50% showed a trend toward lower ISR/ISL ratios than false positives (mean, 0.35 vs 0.87).
conclusionsImage quality of PCCT for coronary stent evaluation is improved compared to EID-CT, and the accuracy for detection of ISR ≥ 50% is high. KEY POINTS: Question Does photon-counting CT improve the diagnostic accuracy for detection of in-stent restenosis (ISR) ≥ 50%, and image quality compared with energy-integrating detector (EID) CT? Findings Photon-counting CT provides higher image quality and a low rate of nondiagnostic stents (0.3%). For detecting ≥ 50% ISR, the diagnostic accuracy is high and the PPV is moderate. Clinical relevance Photon-counting computed tomography (PCCT) has the potential to overcome technical limitations of conventional energy-integrating CT in coronary stent assessment and could improve the reliability of non-invasive follow-up after percutaneous coronary intervention.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42763334What 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.