2018
DOI: 10.2478/jim-2018-0033
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

CTA Evaluation of Bioresorbable Scaffolds versus Metallic Coronary Stents – a Feasibility Study

Abstract: Background: Computed tomography angiography (CTA) presents important limits in in-stent restenosis (ISR) evaluation in case of metallic coronary stents, due to the artifacts determined by stent struts, which alter in-stent plaque analysis. In case of bioresorbable scaffolds, stent strut resorption allows accurate evaluation of the vessel wall. Aim of the study: This study aims to compare the feasibility of CTA as a follow-up imaging method for ISR diagnosis following elective PTCA procedures, between bioresorb… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
3

Relationship

1
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 24 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Since coronary stenosis alone does not predict the risk of future cardiovascular events, the coronary artery calcium (CAC) score estimates the overall calcification burden and predicts future ischemic events without contrast use. With the introduction of bioresorbable stents (Figures 4 and 5 ), this set-back has been overcome[ 145 , 146 ]. Contrary to magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), pacemakers and defibrillators do not preclude the use of CCTA, however it should be noted that their leads may create artefacts.…”
Section: Coronary Computed Tomography Angiographymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Since coronary stenosis alone does not predict the risk of future cardiovascular events, the coronary artery calcium (CAC) score estimates the overall calcification burden and predicts future ischemic events without contrast use. With the introduction of bioresorbable stents (Figures 4 and 5 ), this set-back has been overcome[ 145 , 146 ]. Contrary to magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), pacemakers and defibrillators do not preclude the use of CCTA, however it should be noted that their leads may create artefacts.…”
Section: Coronary Computed Tomography Angiographymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Furthermore, the workgroup analyzed plaque composition and demonstrated a significant decrease of the fibro-fatty tissue after BVS implantation (10.31% ± 6.24 vs. 6.46% ± 6.14, p = 0.01) and regression of the vulnerability degree of coronary plaques (with significant decrease of low attenuation plaques [37.5% vs. 20.83%, p = 0.01] and significant increase of spotty calcifications after BVS implantation [66.66% vs. 79.16%, p = 0.05]). 16,17 The result of this study aids in the understanding of vascular and plaque changes following BVS implantation and further enhances the role of CCTA in the evaluation of BVS. The authors succeeded to make a big step forward in order to validate CCTA as the method of choice for imaging-based follow-up of patients with BVS.…”
Section: Noninvasive Imaging Methodsmentioning
confidence: 81%
“…Advances in CCTA technology allow better luminal evaluation as well as plaque characterization, with contemporary studies showing high sensitivity and specificity to exclude obstructive lesions [ 35 , 36 , 37 ]. Moreover, the polymeric scaffold of BRS does not produce beam-hardening artifacts, hence minimizing the blooming effect and allowing CCTA to have higher diagnostic accuracy to detect in-scaffold lumen obstruction [ 38 , 39 , 40 ].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%