scholarly journals Utility of optical coherence tomography and intravascular ultrasound for the evaluation of coronary lesions

2013 ◽  
Vol 32 (11) ◽  
pp. 925-929
Author(s):  
Agustín Girassolli ◽  
Sebastián Carrizo ◽  
Santiago Jiménez-Valero ◽  
Angel Sánchez Recalde ◽  
Juan Ruiz García ◽  
...  
2013 ◽  
Vol 32 (11) ◽  
pp. 925-929 ◽  
Author(s):  
Agustín Girassolli ◽  
Sebastián Carrizo ◽  
Santiago Jiménez-Valero ◽  
Angel Sánchez Recalde ◽  
Juan Ruiz García ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Weili Teng ◽  
Qi Li ◽  
Yuliang Ma ◽  
Chengfu Cao ◽  
Jian Liu ◽  
...  

Abstract Background To compare the effect and outcomes of optical coherence tomography (OCT)-guided rotational atherectomy (RA) with intravascular ultrasound (IVUS)-guided RA in the treatment of calcified coronary lesions. Methods Data of calcified coronary lesions treated with RA that underwent OCT-guided or IVUS-guided from January 2016 to December 2019 at a single-center registry were retrospectively analyzed. The effect and outcomes between underwent OCT-guided RA and IVUS-guided RA were compared. Results A total of 33 lesions in 32 patients received OCT-guided RA and 51 lesions in 47 patients received IVUS-guided RA. There was no significant difference between OCT-guided RA group and IVUS-guided RA group in clinical baselines characteristics. Comparing the procedural and lesions characteristics of the two groups, the contrast volume was larger [(348.8 ± 110.6) ml vs. (275.2 ± 76.8) ml, P = 0.002] and the scoring balloon was more frequently performed (33.3% vs. 3.9%, P = 0.001) after RA and before stenting in the OCT-guided RA group. Comparing the intravascular imaging findings of the two groups, stent expansion was significantly larger in the OCT-guided RA group ([82 ± 8]% vs. [75 ± 9]%, P = 0.001). Both groups achieved procedural success immediately. There were no significantly differences in the incidence of complications. Although there was no statistical difference in the occurrence of MACE at 1 year between OCT-guided RA group and IVUS-guided RA group (3.1% vs. 6.4%, P = 0.517), no cardiovascular death, TVR and stent thrombosis occurred in OCT-guided RA group. Conclusions OCT-guided RA compared to IVUS-guided RA for treating calcified coronary lesions resulted in better stent expansion and may have improved prognosis.


2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (04) ◽  
pp. 343-350
Author(s):  
TNC Padmanabhan ◽  
Mohammed Sadiq Azam

Abstract Since the publication of the previous article on the same topic in the journal, as a result of the better understanding in intravascular imaging (intravascular ultrasound [IVUS] and optical coherence tomography [OCT]) and introduction of intravascular lithotripsy (IVL) into clinical practice, the outcomes in patients with calcified coronary lesions have become more predictable and safe with lesser complication rates.


2016 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 11
Author(s):  
Sudheer Koganti ◽  
◽  
◽  
◽  
Tushar Kotecha ◽  
...  

Intracoronary imaging has the capability of accurately measuring vessel and stenosis dimensions, assessing vessel integrity, characterising lesion morphology and guiding optimal percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Coronary angiography used to detect and assess coronary stenosis severity has limitations. The 2D nature of fluoroscopic imaging provides lumen profile only and the assessment of coronary stenosis by visual estimation is subjective and prone to error. Performing PCI based on coronary angiography alone is inadequate for determining key metrics of the vessel such as dimension, extent of disease, and plaque distribution and composition. The advent of intracoronary imaging has offset the limitations of angiography and has shifted the paradigm to allow a detailed, objective appreciation of disease extent and morphology, vessel diameter, stent size and deployment and healing after PCI. It has become an essential tool in complex PCI, including rotational atherectomy, in follow-up of novel drug-eluting stent platforms and understanding the pathophysiology of stent failure after PCI (e.g. following stent thrombosis or in-stent restenosis). In this review we look at the two currently available and commonly used intracoronary imaging tools – intravascular ultrasound and optical coherence tomography – and the merits of each.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document