Search

OBJECTIVE. Evaluations of stents by MDCT from studies performed at single centers have yielded variable results with a high proportion of unassessable stents. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of 64-MDCT angiography (MDCTA) in identifying in-stent restenosis in a multicenter trial. MATERIALS AND METHODS. The Coronary Evaluation Using Multidetector Spiral Computed Tomography Angiography Using 64 Detectors (CORE-64) Multicenter Trial and Registry evaluated the accuracy of 64-MDCTA in assessing 405 patients referred for coronary angiography. A total of 75 stents in 52 patients were assessed: 48 of 75 stents (64%) in 36 of 52 patients (69%) could be evaluated. The prevalence of in-stent restenosis by quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) in this subgroup was 23% (17/75). Eighty percent of the stents were ≤ 3.0 mm in diameter. RESULTS. The overall sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value to detect 50% in-stent stenosis visually using MDCT compared with QCA was 33.3%, 91.7%, 57.1%, and 80.5%, respectively, with an overall accuracy of 77.1% for the 48 assessable stents. The ability to evaluate stents on MDCTA varied by stent type: Thick-strut stents such as Bx Velocity were assessable in 50% of the cases; Cypher, 62.5% of the cases; and thinner-strut stents such as Taxus, 75% of the cases. We performed quantitative assessment of in-stent contrast attenuation in Hounsfield units and correlated that value with the quantitative percentage of stenosis by QCA. The correlation coefficient between the average attenuation decrease and ≥ 50% stenosis by QCA was 0.25 (p = 0.073). Quantitative assessment failed to improve the accuracy of MDCT over qualitative assessment. CONCLUSION. The results of our study showed that 64-MDCT has poor ability to detect in-stent restenosis in small-diameter stents. Evaluability and negative predictive value were better in large-diameter stents. Thus, 64-MDCT may be appropriate for stent