Background: Quantitative coronary stenosis and plaque volumes have demonstrated intra-individual differences between ultrahigh-resolution (UHR) photon-counting detector (PCD)-CT and energy-integrating detector (EID)-CT. This study aimed to assess the impact of UHR PCD-CT on semiquantitative scores of coronary artery disease (CAD) burden compared with EID-CT. Methods: Patients undergoing coronary CT angiography (CCTA) on an EID-CT system for stable chest pain or pre-transcatheter aortic valve replacement evaluation were prospectively enrolled for UHR PCD-CT scan within 30 days. Both datasets were visually evaluated using five established semiquantitative scores: Segment Involvement Score (SIS), Segment Stenosis Score (SSS), Multivessel Aggregate Stenosis Score (MVAS), CCTA-adapted Leaman score (CT-LeSc), and Coronary Artery Disease Reporting and Data System (CAD-RADS). Additionally, the total number of detected plaques and high-risk features were reported (positive remodeling, spotty calcification, low-attenuation, and napkin-ring sign). Results: The cohort comprised 46 patients (37 men, 68.4 ± 6.9 years). When assessing stenosis severity, PCD-CT showed lower SSS (3.5 [1.3–5.0] vs 6.5 [3.0–9.8], p < 0.001), MVAS (5.5 [4.0–7.0] vs 7.0 [5.0–9.0], p < 0.001), and CT-LeSc (10.4 [8.5–13.9] vs 11.2 [8.8–15.4], p = 0.032). Furthermore, 52 % (24/46) of patients were reclassified to a lower CAD-RADS category compared to EID-CT. In terms of CAD extent, PCD-CT demonstrated higher SIS (8.0 [6.0–9.0] vs 7.0 [6.0–8.8], p = 0.018) and plaque count (9.0 [7.0–13.8] vs 7.0 [7.0–9.8] p < 0.001). Positive remodeling was less frequent in PCD-CT datasets (2.0 [1.0–4.3] vs 1.0 [0.0–3.0], p = 0.012), with no significant differences in other high-risk features. Conclusion: The use of UHR PCD-CT detects less severe, but more extensive CAD compared to EID-CT. The effect of such CCTA-based differences on individual risk stratification needs further investigation.
Semiquantitative metrics of coronary artery disease burden: Intra-individual comparison between ultrahigh-resolution photon-counting detector CT and energy-integrating detector CT / Tremamunno, Giuseppe; Varga-Szemes, Akos; Schoepf, U Joseph; Kravchenko, Dmitrij; Hagar, Muhammad Taha; Gnasso, Chiara; Zsarnóczay, Emese; O'Doherty, Jim; Caruso, Damiano; Laghi, Andrea; Szilveszter, Bálint; Vattay, Borbála; Maurovich-Horvat, Pál; Kabakus, Ismail Mikdat; Suranyi, Pal Spruill; Emrich, Tilman; Vecsey-Nagy, Milan. - In: JOURNAL OF CARDIOVASCULAR COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY. - ISSN 1876-861X. - 19:4(2025), pp. 474-482. [10.1016/j.jcct.2025.04.012]
Semiquantitative metrics of coronary artery disease burden: Intra-individual comparison between ultrahigh-resolution photon-counting detector CT and energy-integrating detector CT
Tremamunno, GiuseppePrimo
;Caruso, Damiano;Laghi, Andrea;
2025
Abstract
Background: Quantitative coronary stenosis and plaque volumes have demonstrated intra-individual differences between ultrahigh-resolution (UHR) photon-counting detector (PCD)-CT and energy-integrating detector (EID)-CT. This study aimed to assess the impact of UHR PCD-CT on semiquantitative scores of coronary artery disease (CAD) burden compared with EID-CT. Methods: Patients undergoing coronary CT angiography (CCTA) on an EID-CT system for stable chest pain or pre-transcatheter aortic valve replacement evaluation were prospectively enrolled for UHR PCD-CT scan within 30 days. Both datasets were visually evaluated using five established semiquantitative scores: Segment Involvement Score (SIS), Segment Stenosis Score (SSS), Multivessel Aggregate Stenosis Score (MVAS), CCTA-adapted Leaman score (CT-LeSc), and Coronary Artery Disease Reporting and Data System (CAD-RADS). Additionally, the total number of detected plaques and high-risk features were reported (positive remodeling, spotty calcification, low-attenuation, and napkin-ring sign). Results: The cohort comprised 46 patients (37 men, 68.4 ± 6.9 years). When assessing stenosis severity, PCD-CT showed lower SSS (3.5 [1.3–5.0] vs 6.5 [3.0–9.8], p < 0.001), MVAS (5.5 [4.0–7.0] vs 7.0 [5.0–9.0], p < 0.001), and CT-LeSc (10.4 [8.5–13.9] vs 11.2 [8.8–15.4], p = 0.032). Furthermore, 52 % (24/46) of patients were reclassified to a lower CAD-RADS category compared to EID-CT. In terms of CAD extent, PCD-CT demonstrated higher SIS (8.0 [6.0–9.0] vs 7.0 [6.0–8.8], p = 0.018) and plaque count (9.0 [7.0–13.8] vs 7.0 [7.0–9.8] p < 0.001). Positive remodeling was less frequent in PCD-CT datasets (2.0 [1.0–4.3] vs 1.0 [0.0–3.0], p = 0.012), with no significant differences in other high-risk features. Conclusion: The use of UHR PCD-CT detects less severe, but more extensive CAD compared to EID-CT. The effect of such CCTA-based differences on individual risk stratification needs further investigation.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
