Cargando…

Imaging of pediatric great vessel stents: Computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging?

BACKGROUND: Complications might occur after great vessel stent implantation in children. Therefore follow-up using imaging is warranted. PURPOSE: To determine the optimal imaging modality for the assessment of stents used to treat great vessel obstructions in children. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Five dif...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: den Harder, A. M., Suchá, D., van Hamersvelt, R. W., Budde, R. P. J., de Jong, P. A., Schilham, A. M. R., Bos, C., Breur, J. M. P. J., Leiner, T.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5283725/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28141852
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0171138
_version_ 1782503539537346560
author den Harder, A. M.
Suchá, D.
van Hamersvelt, R. W.
Budde, R. P. J.
de Jong, P. A.
Schilham, A. M. R.
Bos, C.
Breur, J. M. P. J.
Leiner, T.
author_facet den Harder, A. M.
Suchá, D.
van Hamersvelt, R. W.
Budde, R. P. J.
de Jong, P. A.
Schilham, A. M. R.
Bos, C.
Breur, J. M. P. J.
Leiner, T.
author_sort den Harder, A. M.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Complications might occur after great vessel stent implantation in children. Therefore follow-up using imaging is warranted. PURPOSE: To determine the optimal imaging modality for the assessment of stents used to treat great vessel obstructions in children. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Five different large vessel stents were evaluated in an in-vitro setting. All stents were expanded to the maximal vendor recommended diameter (20mm; n = 4 or 10mm; n = 1), placed in an anthropomorphic chest phantom and imaged with a 256-slice CT-scanner. MRI images were acquired at 1.5T using a multi-slice T(2)-weighted turbo spin echo, an RF-spoiled three-dimensional T(1)-weighted Fast Field Echo and a balanced turbo field echo 3D sequence. Two blinded observers assessed stent lumen visibility (measured diameter/true diameter *100%) in the center and at the outlets of the stent. Reproducibility of diameter measurements was evaluated using the intraclass correlation coefficient for reliability and 95% limits of agreement for agreement analysis. RESULTS: Median stent lumen visibility was 88 (IQR 86–90)% with CT for all stents at both the center and outlets. With MRI, the T(2)-weighted turbo spin echo sequence was preferred which resulted in 82 (78–84%) stent lumen visibility. Interobserver reliability and agreement was good for both CT (ICC 0.997, mean difference -0.51 [-1.07–0.05] mm) and MRI measurements (ICC 0.951, mean difference -0.05 [-2.52 –-2.41] mm). CONCLUSION: Good in-stent lumen visibility was achievable in this in-vitro study with both CT and MRI in different great vessel stents. Overall reliability was good with clinical acceptable limits of agreement for both CT and MRI. However, common conditions such as in-stent stenosis and associated aneurysms were not tested in this in-vitro study, limiting the value of the in-vitro study.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5283725
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-52837252017-02-17 Imaging of pediatric great vessel stents: Computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging? den Harder, A. M. Suchá, D. van Hamersvelt, R. W. Budde, R. P. J. de Jong, P. A. Schilham, A. M. R. Bos, C. Breur, J. M. P. J. Leiner, T. PLoS One Research Article BACKGROUND: Complications might occur after great vessel stent implantation in children. Therefore follow-up using imaging is warranted. PURPOSE: To determine the optimal imaging modality for the assessment of stents used to treat great vessel obstructions in children. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Five different large vessel stents were evaluated in an in-vitro setting. All stents were expanded to the maximal vendor recommended diameter (20mm; n = 4 or 10mm; n = 1), placed in an anthropomorphic chest phantom and imaged with a 256-slice CT-scanner. MRI images were acquired at 1.5T using a multi-slice T(2)-weighted turbo spin echo, an RF-spoiled three-dimensional T(1)-weighted Fast Field Echo and a balanced turbo field echo 3D sequence. Two blinded observers assessed stent lumen visibility (measured diameter/true diameter *100%) in the center and at the outlets of the stent. Reproducibility of diameter measurements was evaluated using the intraclass correlation coefficient for reliability and 95% limits of agreement for agreement analysis. RESULTS: Median stent lumen visibility was 88 (IQR 86–90)% with CT for all stents at both the center and outlets. With MRI, the T(2)-weighted turbo spin echo sequence was preferred which resulted in 82 (78–84%) stent lumen visibility. Interobserver reliability and agreement was good for both CT (ICC 0.997, mean difference -0.51 [-1.07–0.05] mm) and MRI measurements (ICC 0.951, mean difference -0.05 [-2.52 –-2.41] mm). CONCLUSION: Good in-stent lumen visibility was achievable in this in-vitro study with both CT and MRI in different great vessel stents. Overall reliability was good with clinical acceptable limits of agreement for both CT and MRI. However, common conditions such as in-stent stenosis and associated aneurysms were not tested in this in-vitro study, limiting the value of the in-vitro study. Public Library of Science 2017-01-31 /pmc/articles/PMC5283725/ /pubmed/28141852 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0171138 Text en © 2017 den Harder et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
den Harder, A. M.
Suchá, D.
van Hamersvelt, R. W.
Budde, R. P. J.
de Jong, P. A.
Schilham, A. M. R.
Bos, C.
Breur, J. M. P. J.
Leiner, T.
Imaging of pediatric great vessel stents: Computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging?
title Imaging of pediatric great vessel stents: Computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging?
title_full Imaging of pediatric great vessel stents: Computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging?
title_fullStr Imaging of pediatric great vessel stents: Computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging?
title_full_unstemmed Imaging of pediatric great vessel stents: Computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging?
title_short Imaging of pediatric great vessel stents: Computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging?
title_sort imaging of pediatric great vessel stents: computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging?
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5283725/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28141852
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0171138
work_keys_str_mv AT denharderam imagingofpediatricgreatvesselstentscomputedtomographyormagneticresonanceimaging
AT suchad imagingofpediatricgreatvesselstentscomputedtomographyormagneticresonanceimaging
AT vanhamersveltrw imagingofpediatricgreatvesselstentscomputedtomographyormagneticresonanceimaging
AT budderpj imagingofpediatricgreatvesselstentscomputedtomographyormagneticresonanceimaging
AT dejongpa imagingofpediatricgreatvesselstentscomputedtomographyormagneticresonanceimaging
AT schilhamamr imagingofpediatricgreatvesselstentscomputedtomographyormagneticresonanceimaging
AT bosc imagingofpediatricgreatvesselstentscomputedtomographyormagneticresonanceimaging
AT breurjmpj imagingofpediatricgreatvesselstentscomputedtomographyormagneticresonanceimaging
AT leinert imagingofpediatricgreatvesselstentscomputedtomographyormagneticresonanceimaging