Dual energy computed tomography in evaluation of cervical carotid calcified plaque stenosis
Main Article Content
Abstract
Dual Energy Computed Tomographic Angiography (DECT) with calcified plaque removal was compared with conventional CTA in the evaluation of the the degree of stenosis of the internal carotid artery (ICA). 43 stenosis ICA in 27 patients were assessed according to the North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial (NASCET) criteria on both CTA and DECT techniques. There is a very good agreement between these two diagnostic methods in the evaluation of stenosis ICA with Kappa coefficient = 0,812. The average stenosis ICA measured on conventional CTA and DECT images were 63,3 ± 25.0% and 59,5 ± 24,4%, respectively (p <0.001). Thus, DECT for calcified plaque removal facilitated the assessment of stenosis in all ICA and performed better than the conventional CTA.
Article Details
Keywords
Carotid stenosis, Calcified plaque, Dual energy CTA
References
2. Nederkoorn PJ, van der Graaf Y, Hunink MGM. Duplex ultrasound and magnetic resonance angiography compared with digital subtraction angiography in carotid artery stenosis. Stroke. 2003; 34(5):1324–32.
3. Josephson SA, Bryant SO, Mak HK, et al. Evaluation of carotid stenosis using CT angiography in the initial evaluation of stroke and TIA. Neurology. 2004; 63: 457–460.
4. Korn A, Bender B, Brodoefel H, et al. Grading of carotid artery stenosis in the presence of extensive calcifications: dual-energy CT angiography in comparison with contrast-enhanced MR angiography. CJCn. 2013; 25(1): 33-40.
5. Marks MP, Napel S, Jordan JE, et al. Diagnosis of carotid artery disease: preliminary experience with maximum-intensity-projectionspiral CT angiography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1993; 160: 1267–71.
6. Thomas C, Korn A, Krauss B, et al. Automatic bone and plaque removal using dual energy CT for head and neck angiography: feasibility and initial performance evaluation. UJEjoR. 2010; 76(1):61-67.
7. Uotani K, Watanabe Y, Higashi M, et al. Dual-energy CT head bone and hard plaque removal for quantification of calcified carotid stenosis: utility and comparison with digital subtraction angiography. JEr. 2009; 19(8): 2060-2065.
8. Naruto, N, Itoh, T, & Noguchi, K. Dual energy computed tomography for the head. Japanese Journal of Radiology. 2017; 36(2): 69–80.
9. Das M, Braunschweig T, Mühlenbruch G, et al. Carotid plaque analysis: comparison of dual-source computed tomography (CT) findings and histopathological correlation. 2009;38(1):14-19.
10. Morhard D, Fink C, Graser A, et al. Cervical and cranial computed tomographic angiography with automated bone removal: dual energy computed tomography versus standard computed tomography. Invest Radiol. 2009; 44: 293–297.
11. Lell MM, Kramer M, Klotz E, et al. Carotid computed tomography angiography with automated bone suppression: a comparative study between dual energy and bone subtraction techniques. Invest Radiol. 2009; 44:322–328.
12. Kaemmerer N, Brand M, Hammon M, et al. Dual-energy computed tomography angiography of the head and neck with single-source computed tomography: a new technical (Split Filter) approach for bone removal. Invest Radiol. 2016; 51: 618–623.
13. Mannil M, Ramachandran J, de Martini IV, et al. Modified dual-energy algorithm for calcified plaque removal: evaluation in carotid computed tomography angiography and comparison with digital subtraction angiography. SJIR. 2017; 52(11): 680-685.
14. Lv P, Lin J, Guo D, et al. Detection of carotid artery stenosis: a comparison between 2 unenhanced MRAs and dual-source CTA. American Journal of Neuroradiology. 2014; 35(12): 2360-2365.