Computed tomography angiography in diagnosis of in-stent restenosis in proximal left anterior descending artery

Elfar S.

Port Said University

Onsy A.

Ain Shams University

Aziz M.

Ain Shams University

Abdelhamid I.

Misr University for Science and Technology

Computed tomography angiography in diagnosis of in-stent restenosis in proximal left anterior descending artery

Authors:

Elfar S., Onsy A., Aziz M., Abdelhamid I.

More about the authors

Journal: Russian Journal of Cardiology and Cardiovascular Surgery. 2021;14(4): 243‑247

DOI: 10.17116/kardio202114041243

Downloaded: 36

Download PDF (RU)

Contact the author

Table of contents

To cite this article:

Elfar S, Onsy A, Aziz M, Abdelhamid I. Computed tomography angiography in diagnosis of in-stent restenosis in proximal left anterior descending artery. Russian Journal of Cardiology and Cardiovascular Surgery. 2021;14(4):243‑247. (In Russ.)
https://doi.org/10.17116/kardio202114041243

Подписка 2025-2 (Russian Journal of Cardiology and Cardiovascular Surgery)

Close metadata

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the efficacy of CT angiography for diagnosis of in-stent restenosis (ISR) in proximal left anterior descending (LAD) artery.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A prospective observational study included 50 patients who underwent coronary angiography (CA) and CT angiography for typical angina pectoris and suspected LAD in-stent restenosis. Significant ISR was determined by luminal diameter narrowing ≥50% or total occlusion.

RESULTS

Significant ISR was found in 40% of patients, while 60% of patients had non-significant ISR. According to CT angiography data, 48% of patients had significant ISR, 52% — non-significant ISR. Sensitivity of CT angiography in diagnosis of LAD in-stent restenosis was 100%, specificity — 86%, positive predictive value — 83%, negative predictive value — 100%, test accuracy — 92%. There was a correlation between these results and stent diameter. Indeed, test accuracy was 73% in patients with stent diameter <3 mm and 100% in patients with stent diameter >3 mm.

CONCLUSION

CT angiography is a reliable and effective diagnostic method for proximal ISR of LAD with high negative predictive value. However, its accuracy depends on stent diameter.

Keywords:

left anterior descending artery

in-stent restenosis

coronary angiography

computed tomography

Authors:

Elfar S.

Port Said University

Onsy A.

Ain Shams University

Aziz M.

Ain Shams University

Abdelhamid I.

Misr University for Science and Technology

Received:

15.01.2021

Accepted:

10.02.2021

List of references:

Schoenhagen P, Halliburton SS, Stillman AE, Kuzmiak SA, Nissen SE, Tuzcu EM, et al. Noninvasive Imaging of Coronary Arteries: Current and Future Role of Multi-Detector Row Ct. Radiology. 2004;232:7-17.
Morice MC, Colombo A, Meier B, Serruys P, Tamburino C, Guagliumi G, et al. Sirolimus- Vs Paclitaxel-Eluting Stents in De Novo Coronary Artery Lesions: The Reality Trial: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Jama. 2006;295:895-904.
Fine JJ, Hopkins CB, Ruff N, Newton FC. Comparison of Accuracy of 64-Slice Cardiovascular Computed Tomography with Coronary Angiography in Patients with Suspected Coronary Artery Disease. Am J Cardiol. 2006;97:173-174.
Schoepf UJ, Becker CR, Ohnesorge BM, Yucel EK. Ct of Coronary Artery Disease. Radiology. 2004;232:18-37.
Mühlenbruch G, Mahnken AH, Das M, Blindt R, Hohl C, Wildberger JE, et al. Evaluation of Aortocoronary Bypass Stents with Cardiac Mdct Compared with Conventional Catheter Angiography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007;188:361-369.
Van Mieghem CA, Cademartiri F, Mollet NR, Malagutti P, Valgimigli M, Meijboom WB, et al. Multislice Spiral Computed Tomography for the Evaluation of Stent Patency after Left Main Coronary Artery Stenting: A Comparison with Conventional Coronary Angiography and Intravascular Ultrasound. Circulation. 2006;114:645-653.
Krüger S, Mahnken AH, Sinha AM, Borghans A, Dedden K, Hoffmann R, et al. Multislice Spiral Computed Tomography for the Detection of Coronary Stent Restenosis and Patency. Int J Cardiol. 2003;89:167-172.
Windecker S, Kolh P, Alfonso F, Collet J-P, Cremer J, et al. 2014 Esc/Eacts Guidelines on Myocardial Revascularization: The Task Force on Myocardial Revascularization of the European Society of Cardiology (Esc) and the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (Eacts)Developed with the Special Contribution of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (Eapci). European Heart Journal. 2014;35:2541-2619.
Das KM, El-Menyar AA, Salam AM, Singh R, Dabdoob WA, Albinali HA, et al. Contrast-Enhanced 64-Section Coronary Multidetector Ct Angiography Versus Conventional Coronary Angiography for Stent Assessment. Radiology. 2007;245:424-432.
Dawoud MA, Alarabawy RA, Abd Alla TM, Mubarak AA. Evaluation of Coronary Stents Using Multidetector Ct. The Egyptian Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine. 2016;47:793-801.
Mahnken AH, Mühlenbruch G, Seyfarth T, Flohr T, Stanzel S, Wildberger JE, et al. 64-Slice Computed Tomography Assessment of Coronary Artery Stents: A Phantom Study. Acta Radiol. 2006;47:36-42.
Seifarth H, Ozgün M, Raupach R, Flohr T, Heindel W, Fischbach R, et al. 64-Versus 16-Slice Ct Angiography for Coronary Artery Stent Assessment: In Vitro Experience. Invest Radiol. 2006;41:22-27.
Carbone I, Francone M, Algeri E, Granatelli A, Napoli A, Kirchin MA, et al. Non-Invasive Evaluation of Coronary Artery Stent Patency with Retrospectively Ecg-Gated 64-Slice Ct Angiography. Eur Radiol. 2008;18:234-243.
Haraldsdottir S, Gudnason T, Sigurdsson AF, Gudjonsdottir J, Lehman SJ, Eyjolfsson K, et al. Diagnostic Accuracy of 64-Slice Multidetector Ct for Detection of in-Stent Restenosis in an Unselected, Consecutive Patient Population. Eur J Radiol. 2010;76:188-194.
Yoshimura M, Nao T, Miura T, Okada M, Nakashima Y, Fujimura T, et al. New Quantitative Method to Diagnose Coronary in-Stent Restenosis by 64-Multislice Computed Tomography. J Cardiol. 2015;65:57-62.
Oncel D, Oncel G, Karaca M. Coronary Stent Patency and in-Stent Restenosis: Determination with 64-Section Multidetector Ct Coronary Angiography — Initial Experience. Radiology. 2007;242:403-409.

Close metadata