CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

科学研究

科研文章

荐读文献

In-Hospital Costs and Costs of Complications of Chronic Total Occlusion Angioplasty Insights From the OPEN-CTO Registry Long-term outcomes of rotational atherectomy of underexpanded stents. A single center experience Double kissing crush in left main coronary bifurcation lesions: A crushing blow to the rival stenting techniques Chronic Kidney Disease and Coronary Artery Disease Left Ventricular Assist Devices: Synergistic Model Between Technology and Medicine Diagnostic performance of stress perfusion cardiac magnetic resonance for the detection of coronary artery disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis Drug-eluting balloons in coronary interventions: the quiet revolution? Catheterization Laboratory Considerations During the Coronavirus (COVID-19) Pandemic: From the ACC’s Interventional Council and SCAI Classification of Deaths in Cardiovascular Outcomes Trials Known Unknowns and Unknown Unknowns Ejection Fraction Pros and Cons: JACC State-of-the-Art Review

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.