CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

科学研究

科研文章

荐读文献

Comparison of inhospital mortality, length of hospitalization, costs, and vascular complications of percutaneous coronary interventions guided by ultrasound versus angiography Revascularization in Patients With Left Main Coronary Artery Disease and Left Ventricular Dysfunction 3-Year Outcomes of the ULTIMATE Trial Comparing Intravascular Ultrasound Versus Angiography-Guided Drug-Eluting Stent Implantation Contribution of stent underexpansion to recurrence after sirolimus-eluting stent implantation for in-stent restenosis Successful bailout stenting strategy against lethal coronary dissection involving left main bifurcation Criteria for Iron Deficiency in Patients With Heart Failure Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement vs Surgical Replacement in Patients With Pure Aortic Insufficiency Genotyping to Guide Clopidogrel Treatment: An In-Depth Analysis of the TAILOR-PCI Trial Longitudinal Assessment of Vascular Function With Sunitinib in Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Why and How to Measure Aortic Valve Calcification in Patients With Aortic Stenosis

Original Research2011 Jan;6(6):768-72.

JOURNAL:EuroIntervention. Article Link

Assessment of the coronary calcification by optical coherence tomography

Kume T, Okura H, Kawamoto T et al. Keywords: coronary artery disease; IVUS; OCT

ABSTRACT

AIMS - Optical coherence tomography (OCT) can delineate calcified plaque without artefacts. The aim of this study was to evaluate the ability of OCT to quantify calcified plaque in ex vivo human coronary arteries.

METHODS AND RESULTS - Ninety-one coronary segments from 33 consecutive human cadavers were examined. By intravascular ultrasound (IVUS), 32 superficial calcified plaques, defined as the leading edge of the acoustic shadowing appears within the most shallow 50% of the plaque plus media thickness, were selected and compared with corresponding OCT and histological examinations. The area of calcification was measured by planimetry. IVUS significantly underestimated the area of calcification compared with histological examination (y = 0.39x + 0.14, r = 0.78, p < 0.001). Although OCT slightly underestimated the area of calcification (y = 0.67x + 0.53, r = 0.84, p < 0.001), it showed a better correlation with histological examination than IVUS.

CONCLUSIONS - Both OCT and IVUS underestimated the area of calcification, but OCT estimates of the area of calcification were more accurate than those estimated by IVUS. Thus, OCT may be a more useful clinical tool to quantify calcified plaque.