Fig 1.
Study flowchart of enrollment.
Table 1.
Patients characteristics.
Table 2.
Image quality and interpretability between Motion-correction versus Conventional reconstructions.
Fig 2.
Example of a 57-year-old man (body weight 78 Kg, heart rate 65 beats/min) underwent prospective scan, curved multiplanar reconstruction images of the right coronary artery (RCA) using conventional reconstruction technology (A) and the new motion-correction algorithm (B), both were performed at 75% of the R-R interval, taking invasive coronary angiography image (C) as reference.
Motion artifacts observed at the mid RCA (A) were significantly corrected by the new algorithm (B).
Table 3.
Diagnostic accuracy for detecting ≥50% stenosis by ICA between Motion-correction versus Conventional reconstructions on three levels.
Fig 3.
Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curves for detection of ≥50% stenosis on per-patient (A), per-vessel (B), per-segment (C) levels, and left anterior descending coronary artery (D), left circumflex coronary artery (E), right coronary artery (F) by artery analysis are shown.
Table 4.
Diagnostic accuracy for detecting ≥50% stenosis by ICA between Motion-correction versus Conventional reconstructions on three vessels.