Shows improved image quality in coronary CT angiography, indicating enhanced diagnostic capabilities for participants.
Objectives:The Swedish CArdioPulmonary bioImage Study reexamination (SCAPIS reexamination) is the first population-based study to employ coronary CT angiography (CCTA) using photon-counting detector CT (PCD-CT).It includes 15,000 participants from SCAPIS baseline.This work aims to describe the PCD-CT protocol in SCAPIS reexamination, compare diagnostic image quality with energy-integrating detector CT (EID-CT) at SCAPIS baseline, and assess the comparability of Agatston scores and degree of stenosis between the studies. Methods:The PCD-CT protocol in SCAPIS reexamination is provided.CCTA data from 1,147 participants in SCAPIS reexamination (51% women, age 65 [IQR 61-69]) and 29,554 participants in SCAPIS (52% women, age 58 [54-61]) were analyzed.The image quality in eleven proximal or middle coronary segments was compared, stratified by Agatston score.Agatston scores and stenosis degree were compared in age-and sex-matched samples. Results:Full diagnostic image quality was more frequent in SCAPIS reexamination (1,036/1,147, 90%) compared with SCAPIS baseline (20,468/26,188, 78%), p<0.001, despite a higher calcium burden (Agatston score 8 [0-106] vs. 0 [0-20]).Of participants with Agatston score >400, 89/116, 77%, and 246/945, 26%, had full diagnostic image quality, respectively, p<0.001.Agatston score distributions and stenosis 50% were similar in matched samples (p=0.51 and p=0.08).Of those with 50% stenosis at SCAPIS baseline, 30% (12/40) were reclassified to <50% in SCAPIS reexamination. Conclusion:The optimized PCD-CT protocol in SCAPIS reexamination provided high image quality, irrespective of Agatston scores, outperforming the EID-CT protocol used at SCAPIS baseline.Agatston scores were comparable, but potential differences in stenosis grading warrant further investigation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lidén et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: