Evidence Hub

Comparison of photon-counting CT angiography with energy-integrating CT angiography in coronary artery stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Kiani I, Mohebbi A, Jannatdoust P, Darmiani K, Mohammadzdeh S, Mohammadi A, Gholamrezanezhead A

BMC medical imaging, 2025

213 participants · 6 citations

Abstract

Purpose: To perform CT-angiography of coronary arteries, energy-integrating detector computed tomography (EID-CT) is widely used but it has several limitations, especially in overestimation of size of calcium plaques. Photon-counting detector computed tomography (PCD-CT) promises better image quality and lower radiation. This study compares the efficacy, radiation dose, and image quality of EID-CT and PCD-CT for coronary artery disease (CAD) diagnosis.

Materials and methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted per PRISMA guidelines. Four databases were searched for studies directly comparing EID-CT and PCD-CT. Data on coronary artery calcium scores (CACS), radiation dose index (mGy), dose-length product (DLP), and image quality were extracted. Risk of bias was assessed using the QUADAS-C tool.

Results: Twelve studies with 213 patients were included. PCD-CT showed a significant reduction in dose index (standardized mean difference (SMD) = -0.62, 95% CI: -0.89 to -0.35, p < 0.001) and DLP (SMD = -0.66, 95% CI: -0.98 to -0.35, p < 0.001) compared to EID-CT. Quantitative data for image quality and artifacts was limited, but qualitative assessments indicated PCD-CT's superior performance in reducing beam-hardening artifacts and providing clearer images of calcified plaques. No significant difference was found in CACS between the modalities (intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) = 0.992, 95% CI: 0.981 to 1.000) based on individual patient data. PCD-CT results…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 213 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free