IMR Press / RCM / Volume 23 / Issue 6 / DOI: 10.31083/j.rcm2306204
Cite this article
Nanoparticles: Properties, applications and toxicities
134
Downloads
248
Views
Submit to RCM
Review for RCM
Apply for Special Issue
Chapters
Figures
References
Abstract
Keywords
I. Introduction
2. Mechanics of Intracoronary Imaging
3. Utility of Intracoronary Imaging
4. Intracoronary Imaging versus Angiography
5. Future Directions
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Ethics Approval and Consent to Participate
Acknowledgment
Funding
Conflict of Interest
References
Open Access Review
Imaging in Percutaneous Coronary Intervention
Mohan Satish1,2, Anastasios Roumeliotis1, David Power1, Anton Camaj1, Johny Nicolas1, Daniel Feldman1,2, Davis Jones1,2, Keisuke Yasumura1, Frans Beerkens1,2, Saman Suleman3, George Dangas1,*
Show Less
1 Zena and Michael A. Wiener Cardiovascular Institute, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY 10029, USA
2 Department of Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY 10029, USA
3 Department of Medicine, Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Hempstead, NY 11549, USA
*Correspondence: george.dangas@mountsinai.org (George Dangas)
Academic Editor: Antonio Mangieri
Rev. Cardiovasc. Med. 2022, 23(6), 204; https://doi.org/10.31083/j.rcm2306204
Submitted: 24 February 2022 | Revised: 2 May 2022 | Accepted: 16 May 2022 | Published: 31 May 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Recent Advances in Percutaneous Coronary Intervention)
Copyright: © 2022 The Author(s). Published by IMR Press.
This is an open access article under the CC BY 4.0 license.
Download PDF
Brower Figures
Cite
Abstract

Intracoronary imaging (ICI) use during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has been shown to effectively improve cardiovascular outcomes, particularly for high-risk subgroups. However, data from randomized controlled trials are limited and the overall utilization rate of ICI remains variable between different countries and centers. Potential benefits of ICI include identification of appropriate lesions for PCI, improved characterization of lesions, and optimization of stent placement. Currently available modalities of ICI include intravascular ultrasound, optical coherence tomography and near infrared spectroscopy. Within this review, we summarize the contemporary evidence surrounding ICI and discuss its application in clinical practice.

Keywords
intracoronary imaging
optical coherence tomography
intravascular ultrasound
I. Introduction

Coronary angiography allows for the assessment of luminal diameter and a relative assessment of coronary stenosis. However, the angiographic evaluation of coronary artery disease has numerous limitations. Most importantly, the two-dimensional visualization of the coronary vessel may confine accurate assessment of lesion characteristics and lead to suboptimal subsequent stent placement [1, 2]. Intracoronary imaging (ICI) techniques like intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) or optical coherence tomography (OCT) can provide helpful information on lesion characteristics during procedure planning and assist with optimal stent placement [3]. Nevertheless, utilization of ICI remains low with high variability across different centers [4]. This may be driven by limitations in cost, expertise, and availability [5]. Herein, we review the current evidence on ICI as it applies to procedural aspects and specific clinical subgroups, and critically discuss future directions.

2. Mechanics of Intracoronary Imaging

The main modalities of ICI (IVUS and OCT) differ significantly in their mechanisms (Table 1). While IVUS utilizes ultrasound waves formed by the oscillatory movement of a transducer as the source of image production [6], OCT utilizes near-infrared light for intracoronary visualization, creating a bloodless field by high velocity contrast injection for rapid lumen imaging acquisition. Contemporary iterations of OCT now utilize frequency domain (FD) imaging which utilizes high viscosity liquids to the same end [7, 8]. Coronary angiography is generally required for both imaging modalities. For coronary artery access with IVUS, a transducer is attached to a guide catheter (a minimum of 5 Fr) and luminal measurements are obtained by manual or motorized pullback upon vessel entry [8]. The axial and lateral resolution of greyscale IVUS is 100–150 μm and 200 μm respectively with a penetration depth of 4–8 mm [6]. To this effect, a significant IVUS-derived parameter is the minimal lumen area (MLA) as it facilitates functional evaluation of a lesion. In contrast, specialized OCT catheters consisting of optical fibers with a hollow metal wire torque, are utilized with higher acquisition speeds (25 mm/s) than that of IVUS upon coronary vessel entry [8]. The axial and lateral resolution of OCT are both much greater than that of IVUS, at 10–20 μm, and 20 μm respectively; however, this comes at the expense of a lower penetration depth of 2 mm [9].

Table 1.Mechanics of Intracoronary Imaging.
Modality: OCT IVUS
Mechanism: near-infrared light ultrasound waves
Penetration: 2 mm 4–8 mm
Resolution: 10–20 mm (axial) 100–150 mm (axial)
20 mm (lateral) 200 mm (lateral)
Advantages: plaque characteristics vessel wall remodeling
stent changes, post-PCI calcifications
Limitations: requires a bloodless field discernment of layers of coronary vessel wall
Image acquisition (normal coronary vessel anatomy shown):

The differences in penetration and resolution explain the inherent limitations of both modalities in comparison. Given its relative limited resolution, IVUS is unable to evaluate the separation of the vessel wall layers (i.e., intima, media and adventitia) compared to OCT [10]. Therefore, OCT is better served within reasonable penetration (<1–1.5 mm) for evaluation of plaque characteristics, including vulnerable plaque markers (i.e., thin-cap fibroatheroma and neovascularization), intrinsic vessel wall characteristics and post-PCI stent changes [11, 12, 13, 14]. Conversely, OCT is limited by its penetration compared with IVUS; therefore, IVUS is more suitable for assessing vessel wall remodeling patterns and identifying dense materials such as calcium that reflect more ultrasound waves [15, 16, 17, 18].

Lastly, irrespective of considerations on penetration and resolution, the need for a bloodless field by high velocity contrast injection with OCT carries two pertinent limitations. First, the identification of aorto-ostial lesions is limited by such a need with OCT, and second, the use of OCT requires the use of contrast and inherently carries a risk of contrast induced nephropathy, particularly for patients with renal impairment [8]. Considering these parameters, the safety and feasibility of both modalities have been shown to be comparable in observational studies [19, 20].

3. Utility of Intracoronary Imaging

The use of ICI during PCI can inform pre-, peri- and postprocedural decision-making (Fig. 1). The pre- and periprocedural use of IVUS or OCT can help with planning for appropriate lesion preparation and modification, in addition to deciding on optimal stent size. Following stent implantation, ICI can assist the operator to achieve optimal stent apposition in addition to further assessing the risk of stent failure (Fig. 2).

Fig. 1.

Utility of Intracoronary Imaging in Percutaneous Coronary Imaging (PCI). Components of intracoronary imaging assessment (above) to guide decision-making (below) at each stage of PCI.

Fig. 2.

Lesion and Stent Failure Identified by Intracoronary Imaging. (A & D) Calcified plaque by IVUS and OCT, respectively. (B & E) Stent malapposition by IVUS and OCT, respectively. (C) Stent under-expansion by IVUS. (F) Tissue prolapse by OCT.

3.1 Pre- and Peri-PCI

Pre- and periprocedural assessment using ICI includes evaluating for calcium and characterizing plaque. With these considerations, assessment of significant stenosis and determining optimal stent sizing are also accomplished. The detection of calcium by angiography appears comparable to IVUS and OCT, while calcified plaque is better assessed with ICI [1, 21, 22, 23, 24]. This is important since a higher risk for stent under-expansion has been observed with calcium angles >180° by both OCT and IVUS [25, 26]. Therefore, one of the main reasons for the use of ICI is to evaluate the need for calcium modification by rotational or orbital atherectomy, or for the use of scoring or cutting balloons [24, 25]. Subsequently, stent expansion on deployment is mediated by the effective calcium modification. Furthermore, attenuated (hypoechoic plaque with deep ultrasound attenuation) or lipid-rich plaques identified by ICI have been associated with worse outcomes during PCI [26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31]. For example, identification of plaque lesions with a large necrotic core by ICI may benefit from use of distal embolic protection devices during PCI [30]. Furthermore, stent under-expansion predicts early stent thrombosis and restenosis, highlighting the need for optimal stent sizing [1, 32, 33, 34, 35]. Compared to angiography, OCT or IVUS guidance provides larger measurements by a luminal approach (e.g., MLA) and therefore allows for the use of stents with larger diameters [36, 37, 38, 39]. Therefore, currently the use of MLA by IVUS remains as one of the most important ICI parameters to objectively identify significant lesions to guide a decision for revascularization. Compared to the gold standard approach for ischemic assessment by fractional flow reserve (FFR), ICI derived measurements have correlated poorly with FFR among angiographic intermediate stenosis but may augment functional assessment in difficult anatomic lesions (aorto-ostial, tandem, LM) [40].

3.2 Post-PCI

Postprocedural assessment with ICI has the potential to identify immediate post-PCI complications that can lead to stent failure by either restenosis or stent thrombosis, including stent under-expansion, malapposition, tissue prolapse, and edge dissection. By identifying the mechanism of stent failure, ICI can help guide further management.

ICI carries a class IIa recommendation by the European guidelines for the evaluation of stent failure [41]. Appropriate determination of stent expansion by ICI measurements of the reference lumen area and minimum stent area (MSA via IVUS) may prevent adverse PCI events from stent under-expansion, particularly early and very late stent thrombosis [24, 42, 43, 44, 45]. Stemming from this, the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) supports the clinical adoption of achieving a stent expansion by an MSA that is at least 80% of the reference lumen area [1].

Among mechanisms of stent failure, malapposition refers to inadequate stent strut contact with the vessel wall and is better identified by OCT compared with IVUS [46, 47, 48]. Evidence for adverse outcomes due to stent malapposition remains mixed [49, 50]. Notably in comparison, significant stent under-expansion has repeatedly been identified as one of the strongest risk factors for early stent thrombosis and therefore stent failure [51]. Interestingly, a unique parameter of OCT evaluation of adequate stent expansion requires proximal and distal stent dilatation that is at least 90% of a given reference segment [41]. By identifying stent under-expansion, application of high pressure balloons can be utilized during index or repeat revascularization. Similarly, tissue prolapse, where there is extrusion of plaque from outside the stent area, and stent edge dissections of the vessel wall, are both findings better diagnosed with OCT that increase the risk of early stent thrombosis but can resolve angiographic misdiagnoses of stent vessel mismatch or spasms [41, 52, 53, 54, 55]. Furthermore the utility of ICI with stent failure due to restenosis extends to the capacity of OCT to evaluate for contributory stent fracture or neoatherosclerosis [56, 57]. The greater spatial resolution of OCT facilitates a higher identification of neointimal rupture and thrombi which appear contributory to the identification of neoatherosclerotic plaque where repeat stenting may be necessary.

4. Intracoronary Imaging versus Angiography

The use of IVUS for PCI guidance has demonstrated a benefit compared to coronary angiography alone in the bare metal stent (BMS) era. This finding was largely due to reductions in target vessel revascularization (TVR) and restenosis, but with neutral findings on mortality and myocardial infarction (MI) [18, 58, 59, 60]. In the drug-eluting stent (DES) era, observational and randomized controlled trial (RCT) data have confirmed these findings, particularly for patients with complex lesions including long lesions (implanted stent >28–30 mm), bifurcation disease, chronic total occlusions (CTOs), and unprotected LM disease [61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75].

4.1 Societal Guidelines

The earliest success with ICI was first realized in an attempt to defer systemic anticoagulation with stent placement by achieving adequate stent expansion via IVUS [76]. Currently, European Society of Cardiology (ESC)/European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS) and American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association/Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions (ACC/AHA/SCAI) guidelines have class II recommendations for IVUS with varying degrees of evidence, best supported for optimizing stent implantation in select cases, preventing stent failure or restenosis, and angiographically assessing LM lesions [77, 78]. In parallel, current OCT guidelines are similar between ESC/EACTS and ACC/AHA/SCAI recommendations (Class IIa, level B) with support for its use as an alternative for imaging guidance [77, 78].

4.2 Randomized Control Trials of ICI

Among RCTs in the DES era that have evaluated the comparison of angiography with IVUS (Table 2, Ref. [70, 72]), the IVUS-XPL (The Impact of Intravascular Ultrasound Guidance on Outcomes of Xience Prime Stents in Long Lesions), CTO-IVUS (Chronic Total Occlusion Interventional with Drug Eluting Stents) and ULTIMATE (Intravascular Ultrasound Guided Drug Eluting Stents Implantation in “All-Comers” Coronary Lesions) trials demonstrated significant reductions in major adverse cardiac events (MACE) or target vessel failure (TVF) [67, 68, 72]. Likewise, in a meta-analysis of RCTs (4724 DES-treated patients), IVUS guidance compared to angiography alone was shown to be associated with significant reductions in MACE, cardiac mortality, TVR, target lesion revascularization (TLR) and definite or probable stent thrombosis compared with angiography alone [75]. However, there were no differences in all-cause mortality or MI between the two groups. Overall, the variability in study design and follow up duration confer limited generalizability of observed findings [67].

Table 2.Summary of Randomized Evidence with Intracoronary Imaging Versus Angiography in the Drug-Eluting Stent Era.
RCT study: Year of publication MACE reduction vs. angiography (Yes/No; * statistical significance) Pertinent primary cohort characteristics
ULTIMATE 2018 Yes * Left main disease, long lesions, chronic total occlusions
Zhang et al. [72] 2016 Yes Small vessel diameters
IVUS-XPL 2015 Yes * Long lesions
CTO-IVUS 2015 Yes * Chronic total occlusions
AIR-CTO 2015 Yes Chronic total occlusions
Tan et al. [70] 2015 Yes Unprotected left main disease
RESET 2013 Yes * Bifurcations, prior PCI
AVIO 2013 Yes * Bifurcations, long lesions, chronic total occlusions, small vessel diameters
HOME DES 2010 Yes Insulin-dependent diabetes, left main lesion, in-stent restenosis, long lesions, bifurcations

Prior to the ULTIMATE trial, the lack of an RCT evaluating ICI in an all-comer population conferred limitations to early randomized and registry data. Additionally, a majority of the prior RCTs were limited in power and had lower complexity of CAD [67, 68]. Furthermore, predefined optimization criteria was not ubiquitously applied across these RCTs to increase the probability of utilizing larger MSAs. In an attempt to address both concerns, the ULTIMATE trial was the largest RCT to consider IVUS guidance among 1448 all-comer patients requiring DES implantation [72]. Many differences in comparison to the IVUS-XPL trial existed that include study endpoint definition, loss to follow-up and number of IVUS criteria necessary to be met for optimization. The primary endpoint of TVF at 12 months was lower with IVUS guidance compared to angiography alone among all comers irrespective of lesion complexity in the ULTIMATE trial (hazard ratio 0.53; 95% confidence interval: 0.31–0.90, p = 0.019) [72]. Additionally, achievement of IVUS-defined criteria for the optimal stent deployment in the ULTIMATE was associated with further net benefit after subgroup analysis: (1) MLA in stented segment >5.0 mm2 or 90% of the MLA at the distal reference segments; (2) plaque burden at the 5 mm proximal or distal to the stent edge less than 50%; (3) no edge dissection involving media with length longer than 3 mm.

Importantly, the feasibility of IVUS-defined criteria can be questioned when only a small percentage of patients achieved the optimal result despite rigorous post-dilatation and effort. However, in the 3-year follow-up data of the ULTIMATE trial, IVUS guidance with PCI showed a persistent significant reduction in TVF compared to angiography, which was again particularly upheld among those meeting IVUS-defined optimization criteria compared to those who did not [79]. Nevertheless, a significant criticism of the ULTIMATE trial is that the complexity of disease was not inclusive enough of a true all-comer population with the utilization of larger stents per patient (average of 66 mm) and a significantly large percent of patients with very complex disease (LM, CTO, etc.).

Evidence supporting IVUS use extends beyond CTOs and long lesions into two specific complex situations - specifically LM disease and in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). In a small RCT of 123 elderly patients, the use of IVUS guidance during LM PCI showed a reduction in MACE at 2 years (driven by a reduction in TLR) [70].

Separately, data from both extensive observational and meta-analyses has supported the use of IVUS guidance during LM PCI that has largely been driven by MACE reduction secondary to lower all-cause mortality [61, 80, 81, 82]. Some plausible mechanisms that have been proposed to support these findings include the use of larger stents with better stent expansion, avoidance of two stent techniques, and more stent post-dilatation with IVUS guidance [1]. However, with no parallel reductions in MI or TLR, a possible mechanistic explanation cannot be surmised without further evaluation devoid of possible confounding. In patients with CKD, as previously discussed, IVUS has an advantage over OCT due to lower utilization of contrast. In a small RCT of 83 patients who were deemed high risk for contrast-induced AKI, IVUS guidance was associated with a reduction in intra-procedural contrast volume [83]. These initial findings have led to direction evaluation of IVUS guidance for zero or ultra-low contrast utilization with PCI in patients with advanced CKD with high procedural success observed [84]. Recently, further observational evidence has extended the possibility of zero-contrast PCI via IVUS guidance with complex lesions in renally impaired patients [85].

5. Future Directions

Despite the available body of evidence and the clinical benefit identified in individual complex patient cohorts with ICI, these imaging modalities remain underutilized. Recent data attributes infrequent use to operator concern for perceived time as well as cost constraints [86]. However, the use of IVUS has been shown to be cost-effective with PCI, driven by the prevention of repeat procedures [87]. Additionally, the EVOLVE Short DAPT (dual antiplatelet study) which demonstrated superior DES outcomes with an abbreviated (3-month vs. 12-month) DAPT course, with very low overall rates of ischemic complications, had a high utilization rate of IVUS guidance (nearly 98%) [88]. Therefore, there is a need to both identify the optimal criteria for IVUS guidance and address potential barriers (cost, availability, expertise and procedure length) in order to promote its use. Similarly, the benefits of IVUS guidance in complex contexts (CTO, LM disease, and long lesions) as described here are currently subject to evaluation in the DKCRUSH VIII (Comparison of IVUS-guided With Angiography-guided Double Kissing Crush Stenting Technique for Patients with Complex Coronary Bifurcation Lesions, NCT# 03770650) study.

Furthermore, growing but limited evidence for other modalities of ICI are also available. Prior to the ongoing ILUMIEN-IV trial (OCT compared with Angiography to Guide Coronary Stent Implantation) trial, no previous RCT compared clinical outcomes between OCT guidance and angiography alone with PCI, rather the mere demonstration of superior procedural success [41, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95]. Interestingly, the previous ILUMIEN series of trials also showed non-inferiority to IVUS in post-procedure MSA [41]. As a result, the ILUMIEN IV and OCTOBER (OCT Optimized Bifurcation Event Reduction) trials are ongoing large scale RCTs attempting to demonstrate the superiority of OCT guidance to angiography alone in clinical outcomes during PCI and among high risk patients and/or complex lesions [96]. Nevertheless, identifying the lesion and clinical situations that would benefit with OCT versus IVUS requires further evidence (Fig. 3) [97]. The integration of both ICI modalities and the concomitant use of artificial intelligence (i.e., calculate degrees of calcium) are current explorations for in its advancement [98]. Another ICI modality of growing interest is near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) which utilizes electromagnetic radiation with frequencies lower than the visible spectrum to characterize the chemical composition of materials, including tissue [99, 100]. The utility of NIRS has been proposed from observational evidence in combination with IVUS to identify vulnerable plaque, assessing lesion size, predicting periprocedural myocardial infarction and optimizing stent implantation. While currently NIRS has been validated for the detection of vulnerable plaques by the prospective LRP (Lipid-Rich Plaque) study, its utility among these pursuits in a clinical setting requires further assessment, including possible combinations with OCT [101]. Therefore, either improving upon the single imaging capacity of one modality or attempting to combine such modalities are active attempts at overcoming the limitations described here. For example, as described with evaluating lesion severity, physiologic assessment via ICI may be improved upon with the utilization of computational fluid dynamics to simulate coronary flow and pressure. Additionally, along with precise evaluations of plaque composition, assessment of vascular inflammation with ICI, including vessel wall shear stress are ongoing endeavors to further characterize vulnerable plaque.

Fig. 3.

Selection of Intracoronary Imaging for Lesion Characterization or Clinical Scenario. Lesion characterization (i.e., chronic total occlusions [CTOs]) and special clinical scenarios are important in consideration of utilizing optical coherence tomography (OCT) or intravascular ultrasound (IVUS).

6. Conclusions

The emergence of ICI during PCI is undergoing both a rapid transition in defining clinical application of IVUS and building upon the growing evidence of OCT with complex lesion characterization to guide intervention. It creates new opportunities in the field of interventional cardiology for more accurate lesion assessment and improved post-PCI result. The search of combined ICI approaches to further optimize lesion characterization and stent selection, and the opportunity to improve upon revascularization in vulnerable patients are additional endeavors under investigation. Moving forward, focusing on identifying appropriate populations that would benefit from ICI and lifting the technical and financial barriers will be necessary in order to effectively expand its utilization.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization—MS, AR, and GD; methodology—MS, AR, DP, AC, DF, DJ, KY, FB, and GD; resources—MS, AR, DP, AC, JN, KY, and GD; data curation—MS and GD; writing — original draft preparation—MS and AR; writing — review and editing—MS, AR, DP, AC, JN, DF, DJ, KY, FB, SS, and GD; supervision—MS, AR, DP, AC, JN, and GD. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Ethics Approval and Consent to Participate

All data cited in this review stems from previously published research. No unpublished human research is cited or pending approval by a research ethics committee or written informed consent.

Acknowledgment

Not applicable.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. George Dangas is serving as one of the guest editor of this journal. We declare that George Dangas had no involvement in the peer review of this article and has no access to information regarding its peer review. Full responsibility for the editorial process for this article was delegated to Antonio Mangieri.

References
[1]
Räber L, Mintz GS, Koskinas KC, Johnson TW, Holm NR, Onuma Y, et al. Clinical use of intracoronary imaging. Part 1: guidance and optimization of coronary interventions. An expert consensus document of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions. European Heart Journal. 2018; 39: 3281–3300.
[2]
Mintz GS, Guagliumi G. Intravascular imaging in coronary artery disease. The Lancet. 2017; 390: 793–809.
[3]
Koskinas KC, Ughi GJ, Windecker S, Tearney GJ, Räber L. Intracoronary imaging of coronary atherosclerosis: validation for diagnosis, prognosis and treatment. European Heart Journal. 2016; 37: 524–535.
[4]
Koskinas KC, Nakamura M, Räber L, Colleran R, Kadota K, Capodanno D, et al. Current Use of Intracoronary Imaging in Interventional Practice - Results of a European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI) and Japanese Association of Cardiovascular Interventions and Therapeutics (CVIT) Clinical Practice Survey. Circulation Journal. 2018; 82: 1360–1368.
[5]
Libby P, Pasterkamp G. Requiem for the “vulnerable plaque”. European Heart Journal. 2015; 36: 2984–2987.
[6]
Garcìa-Garcìa HM, Gogas BD, Serruys PW, Bruining N. IVUS-based imaging modalities for tissue characterization: similarities and differences. The International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging. 2011; 27: 215–224.
[7]
Prati F, Guagliumi G, Mintz GS, Costa M, Regar E, Akasaka T, et al. Expert review document part 2: methodology, terminology and clinical applications of optical coherence tomography for the assessment of interventional procedures. European Heart Journal. 2012; 33: 2513–2520.
[8]
Koganti S, Kotecha T, Rakhit RD. Choice of Intracoronary Imaging: when to Use Intravascular Ultrasound or Optical Coherence Tomography. Interventional Cardiology Review. 2016; 11: 11.
[9]
Terashima M, Kaneda H, Suzuki T. The Role of Optical Coherence Tomography in Coronary Intervention. The Korean Journal of Internal Medicine. 2012; 27: 1.
[10]
Mintz GS, Nissen SE, Anderson WD, Bailey SR, Erbel R, Fitzgerald PJ, et al. American College of Cardiology Clinical Expert Consensus Document on Standards for Acquisition, Measurement and Reporting of Intravascular Ultrasound Studies (IVUS). A report of the American College of Cardiology Task Force on Clinical Expert Consensus Documents. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2001; 37: 1478–1492.
[11]
Jang I, Bouma BE, Kang D, Park S, Park S, Seung K, et al. Visualization of coronary atherosclerotic plaques in patients using optical coherence tomography: comparison with intravascular ultrasound. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2002; 39: 604–609.
[12]
Yabushita H, Bouma BE, Houser SL, Aretz HT, Jang I, Schlendorf KH, et al. Characterization of Human Atherosclerosis by Optical Coherence Tomography. Circulation. 2002; 106: 1640–1645.
[13]
Virmani R, Kolodgie FD, Burke AP, Farb A, Schwartz SM. Lessons from Sudden Coronary Death: a comprehensive morphological classification scheme for atherosclerotic lesions. Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology. 2000; 20: 1262–1275.
[14]
MacNeill BD, Jang IK, Bouma BE. Focal and multi-focal plaque macrophage distributions in patients with acute and stable presentations of coronary artery disease. ACC Current Journal Review. 2004; 13: 38–39.
[15]
Guagliumi G, Sirbu V, Musumeci G, Gerber R, Biondi-Zoccai G, Ikejima H, et al. Examination of the in vivo mechanisms of late drug-eluting stent thrombosis: findings from optical coherence tomography and intravascular ultrasound imaging. JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions. 2012; 5: 12–20.
[16]
Waksman R, Kitabata H, Prati F, Albertucci M, Mintz GS. Intravascular Ultrasound Versus Optical Coherence Tomography Guidance. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2013; 62: S32–S40.
[17]
Kim J, Hong M, Ko Y, Choi D, Yoon JH, Choi S, et al. Impact of intravascular ultrasound guidance on long-term clinical outcomes in patients treated with drug-eluting stent for bifurcation lesions: Data from a Korean multicenter bifurcation registry. American Heart Journal. 2011; 161: 180–187.
[18]
Parise H, Maehara A, Stone GW, Leon MB, Mintz GS. Meta-Analysis of Randomized Studies Comparing Intravascular Ultrasound Versus Angiographic Guidance of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Pre–Drug-Eluting Stent Era. The American Journal of Cardiology. 2011; 107: 374–382.
[19]
Taniwaki M, Radu MD, Garcia-Garcia HM, Heg D, Kelbæk H, Holmvang L, et al. Long-term safety and feasibility of three-vessel multimodality intravascular imaging in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction: the IBIS-4 (integrated biomarker and imaging study) substudy. The International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging. 2015; 31: 915–926.
[20]
Van der Sijde JKA, van Geuns R-J, Valgimigli M. Safety of optical coherence tomography in daily practice: how does it compare to intravascular ultrasound? EuroIntervention (EuroPCR 2015). 2015. Available at: www.pcronline.com (Accessed: 17 May 2022).
[21]
Wang X, Matsumura M, Mintz GS, Lee T, Zhang W, Cao Y, et al. In Vivo Calcium Detection by Comparing Optical Coherence Tomography, Intravascular Ultrasound, and Angiography. JACC: Cardiovascular Imaging. 2017; 10: 869–879.
[22]
Mehanna E, Bezerra HG, Prabhu D, Brandt E, Chamié D, Yamamoto H, et al. Volumetric Characterization of Human Coronary Calcification by Frequency-Domain Optical Coherence Tomography. Circulation Journal. 2013; 77: 2334–2340.
[23]
Kume T, Okura H, Kawamoto T, Yamada R, Miyamoto Y, Hayashida A, et al. Assessment of the coronary calcification by optical coherence tomography. EuroIntervention. 2011; 6: 768–772.
[24]
Kurogi K, Ishii M, Ikebe S, Kaichi R, Mori T, Komaki S, et al. Optical coherence tomography—versus intravascular ultrasound-guided stent expansion in calcified lesions. Cardiovascular Intervention and Therapeutics. 2022; 37: 312–323.
[25]
Hoffmann R. Treatment of calcified coronary lesions with Palmaz–Schatz stents an intravascular ultrasound study. European Heart Journal. 1998; 19: 1224–1231.
[26]
Fujino A, Mintz GS, Matsumura M, Lee T, Kim SY, Hoshino M, et al. A new optical tomography-based calcium scoring system to predict stent under-expansion. EuroIntervention 2018; 13: e2182–e2189.
[27]
Okura H, Taguchi H, Kubo T, Toda I, Yoshida K, Yoshiyama M, et al. Atherosclerotic Plaque with Ultrasonic Attenuation Affects Coronary Reflow and Infarct Size in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome an Intravascular Ultrasound Study. Circulation Journal. 2007; 71: 648–653.
[28]
Lee SY, Mintz GS, Kim S, Hong YJ, Kim SW, Okabe T, et al. Attenuated plaque detected by intravascular ultrasound: clinical angiographic, and morphologic features and post-percutaneous coronary intervention complications in patients with acute coronary syndromes. JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions. 2009; 2: 65–72.
[29]
Wu X, Mintz GS, Xu K, Lansky AJ, Witzenbichler B, Guagliumi G, et al. The Relationship between Attenuated Plaque Identified by Intravascular Ultrasound and no-Reflow after Stenting in Acute Myocardial Infarction: the HORIZONS-AMI (Harmonizing Outcomes With Revascularization and Stents in Acute Myocardial Infarction) trial. JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions. 2011; 4: 495–502.
[30]
Claessen BE, Maehara A, Fahy M, Xu K, Stone GW, Mintz GS. Plaque Composition by Intravascular Ultrasound and Distal Embolization after Percutaneous Coronary Intervention. JACC: Cardiovascular Imaging. 2012; 5: S111–S118.
[31]
Tanaka A, Imanishi T, Kitabata H, Kubo T, Takarada S, Tanimoto T, et al. Lipid-rich plaque and myocardial perfusion after successful stenting in patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome: an optical coherence tomography study. European Heart Journal. 2009; 30: 1348–1355.
[32]
Choi S, Witzenbichler B, Maehara A, Lansky AJ, Guagliumi G, Brodie B, et al. Intravascular Ultrasound Findings of Early Stent Thrombosis after Primary Percutaneous Intervention in Acute Myocardial Infarction: a Harmonizing Outcomes with Revascularization and Stents in Acute Myocardial Infarction (HORIZONS-AMI) substudy. Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions. 2011; 4: 239–247.
[33]
Kang S, Ahn J, Song H, Kim W, Lee J, Park D, et al. Comprehensive Intravascular Ultrasound Assessment of Stent Area and its Impact on Restenosis and Adverse Cardiac Events in 403 Patients with Unprotected Left Main Disease. Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions. 2011; 4: 562–569.
[34]
Sonoda S, Morino Y, Ako J, Terashima M, Hassan AHM, Bonneau HN, et al. Impact of final stent dimensions on long-term results following sirolimus-eluting stent implantation: serial intravascular ultrasound analysis from the Sirius Trial. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2004; 43: 1959–1963.
[35]
Song H, Kang S, Ahn J, Kim W, Lee J, Park D, et al. Intravascular ultrasound assessment of optimal stent area to prevent in-stent restenosis after zotarolimus-, everolimus-, and sirolimus-eluting stent implantation. Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions. 2014; 83: 873–878.
[36]
Bezerra HG, Attizzani GF, Sirbu V, Musumeci G, Lortkipanidze N, Fujino Y, et al. Optical Coherence Tomography Versus Intravascular Ultrasound to Evaluate Coronary Artery Disease and Percutaneous Coronary Intervention. JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions. 2013; 6: 228–236.
[37]
Kubo T, Akasaka T, Shite J, Suzuki T, Uemura S, Yu B, et al. OCT Compared with IVUS in a Coronary Lesion Assessment: the OPUS-CLASS study. JACC: Cardiovascular Imaging. 2013; 6: 1095–1104.
[38]
Okamura T, Onuma Y, Garcia-Garcia H, van Geuns R, Wykrzykowska J, Schultz C, et al. First-in-man evaluation of intravascular optical frequency domain imaging (OFDI) of Terumo: a comparison with intravascular ultrasound and quantitative coronary angiography. EuroIntervention. 2011; 6: 1037–1045.
[39]
Ahn J, Kang S, Yoon S, Park HW, Kang SM, Lee J, et al. Meta-Analysis of Outcomes after Intravascular Ultrasound–Guided Versus Angiography-Guided Drug-Eluting Stent Implantation in 26,503 Patients Enrolled in Three Randomized Trials and 14 Observational Studies. The American Journal of Cardiology. 2014; 113: 1338–1347.
[40]
Nogic J, Prosser H, O’Brien J, Thakur U, Soon K, Proimos G, et al. The assessment of intermediate coronary lesions using intracoronary imaging. Cardiovascular Diagnosis and Therapy. 2020; 10: 1445–1460.
[41]
Ali ZA, Maehara A, Généreux P, Shlofmitz RA, Fabbiocchi F, Nazif TM, et al. Optical coherence tomography compared with intravascular ultrasound and with angiography to guide coronary stent implantation (ILUMIEN III: OPTIMIZE PCI): a randomised controlled trial. The Lancet. 2016; 388: 2618–2628.
[42]
Fujii K, Carlier SG, Mintz GS, Yang Y, Moussa I, Weisz G, et al. Stent underexpansion and residual reference segment stenosis are related to stent thrombosis after sirolimus-eluting stent implantation. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2005; 45: 995–998.
[43]
Hong M-K, Mintz GS, Lee CW, Park D-W, Choi B-R, Park K-H, et al. Intravascular ultrasound predictors of angiographic restenosis after sirolimus-eluting stent implantation. European Heart Journal. 2006; 27: 1305–1310.
[44]
Morino Y, Honda Y, Okura H, Oshima A, Hayase M, Bonneau HN, et al. An optimal diagnostic threshold for minimal stent area to predict target lesion revascularization following stent implantation in native coronary lesions. The American Journal of Cardiology. 2001; 88: 301–303.
[45]
Doi H, Maehara A, Mintz GS, Yu A, Wang H, Mandinov L, et al. Impact of post-intervention minimal stent area on 9-month follow-up patency of paclitaxel-eluting stents: an integrated intravascular ultrasound analysis from the TAXUS IV, V, and VI and TAXUS ATLAS Workhorse, Long Lesion, and Direct Stent Trials. JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions. 2009; 2: 1269–1275.
[46]
Adriaenssens T, Joner M, Godschalk TC, Malik N, Alfonso F, Xhepa E, et al. Optical Coherence Tomography Findings in Patients with Coronary Stent Thrombosis: a report of the PREvention of Late Stent Thrombosis by an Interdisciplinary Global European Effort (PRESTIGE) Consortium. Circulation. 2017; 136: 1007–1021.
[47]
Souteyrand G, Amabile N, Mangin L, Chabin X, Meneveau N, Cayla G, et al. Mechanisms of stent thrombosis analysed by optical coherence tomography: insights from the national PESTO French registry. European Heart Journal. 2016; 37: 1208–1216.
[48]
Taniwaki M, Radu MD, Zaugg S, Amabile N, Garcia-Garcia HM, Yamaji K, et al. Mechanisms of very Late Drug-Eluting Stent Thrombosis Assessed by Optical Coherence Tomography. Circulation. 2016; 133: 650–660.
[49]
Im E, Hong S, Ahn C, Kim J, Kim B, Ko Y, et al. Long‐Term Clinical Outcomes of Late Stent Malapposition Detected by Optical Coherence Tomography after Drug‐Eluting Stent Implantation. Journal of the American Heart Association. 2019; 8: e011817.
[50]
Shimamura K, Kubo T, Akasaka T, Kozuma K, Kimura K, Kawamura M, et al. Outcomes of everolimus-eluting stent incomplete stent apposition: a serial optical coherence tomography analysis. European Heart Journal - Cardiovascular Imaging. 2015; 16: 23–28.
[51]
Sotomi Y, Onuma Y, Dijkstra J, Miyazaki Y, Kozuma K, Tanabe K, et al. Fate of post-procedural malapposition of everolimus-eluting polymeric bioresorbable scaffold and everolimus-eluting cobalt chromium metallic stent in human coronary arteries: sequential assessment with optical coherence tomography in ABSORB Japan trial. European Heart Journal - Cardiovascular Imaging. 2018; 19: 59–66.
[52]
Cheneau E, Leborgne L, Mintz GS, Kotani J, Pichard AD, Satler LF, et al. Predictors of Subacute Stent Thrombosis: results of a systematic intravascular ultrasound study. Circulation. 2003; 108: 43–47.
[53]
Hong YJ, Jeong MH, Ahn Y, Sim DS, Chung JW, Cho JS, et al. Plaque Prolapse after Stent Implantation in Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction: an intravascular ultrasound analysis. JACC: Cardiovascular Imaging. 2008; 1: 489–497.
[54]
Hong YJ, Jeong MH, Choi YH, Song JA, Kim DH, Lee KH, et al. Impact of tissue prolapse after stent implantation on short- and long-term clinical outcomes in patients with acute myocardial infarction: an intravascular ultrasound analysis. International Journal of Cardiology. 2013; 166: 646–651.
[55]
van Zandvoort LJC, Tomaniak M, Tovar Forero MN, Masdjedi K, Visseren L, Witberg K, et al. Predictors for Clinical Outcome of Untreated Stent Edge Dissections as Detected by Optical Coherence Tomography. Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions. 2020; 13: e008685.
[56]
Goto K, Zhao Z, Matsumura M, Dohi T, Kobayashi N, Kirtane AJ, et al. Mechanisms and Patterns of Intravascular Ultrasound in-Stent Restenosis among Bare Metal Stents and first- and second-Generation Drug-Eluting Stents. The American Journal of Cardiology. 2015; 116: 1351–1357.
[57]
Kang S, Mintz GS, Akasaka T, Park D, Lee J, Kim W, et al. Optical Coherence Tomographic Analysis of in-Stent Neoatherosclerosis after Drug–Eluting Stent Implantation. Circulation. 2011; 123: 2954–2963.
[58]
Schiele F, Meneveau N, Vuillemenot A, Zhang DD, Gupta S, Mercier M, et al. Impact of intravascular ultrasound guidance in stent deployment on 6-month restenosis rate: a multicenter, randomized study comparing two strategies—with and without intravascular ultrasound guidance. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 1998; 32: 320–328.
[59]
Frey AW, Hodgson JM, Müller C, Bestehorn H, Roskamm H. Ultrasound-Guided Strategy for Provisional Stenting with Focal Balloon Combination Catheter: results from the randomized Strategy for Intracoronary Ultrasound-guided PTCA and Stenting (SIPS) trial. Circulation. 2000; 102: 2497–2502.
[60]
Oemrawsingh PV, Mintz GS, Schalij MJ, Zwinderman AH, Jukema JW, Wall EEVD. Intravascular Ultrasound Guidance Improves Angiographic and Clinical Outcome of Stent Implantation for Long Coronary Artery Stenoses: final results of a randomized comparison with angiographic guidance (TULIP Study). Circulation. 2003; 107: 62–67.
[61]
Park S, Kim Y, Park D, Lee S, Kim W, Suh J, et al. Impact of Intravascular Ultrasound Guidance on Long-Term Mortality in Stenting for Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery Stenosis. Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions. 2009; 2: 167–177.
[62]
Witzenbichler B, Maehara A, Weisz G, Neumann F, Rinaldi MJ, Metzger DC, et al. Relationship between Intravascular Ultrasound Guidance and Clinical Outcomes after Drug-Eluting Stents: the assessment of dual antiplatelet therapy with drug-eluting stents (ADAPT-DES) study. Circulation. 2014; 129: 463–470.
[63]
Chen S, Ye F, Zhang J, Tian N, Liu Z, Santoso T, et al. Intravascular ultrasound-guided systematic two-stent techniques for coronary bifurcation lesions and reduced late stent thrombosis. Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions. 2013; 81: 456–463.
[64]
Gao XF, Kan J, Zhang YJ, Zhang JJ, Tian NL, Ye F, et al. Comparison of one-year clinical outcomes between intravascular ultrasound-guided versus angiography-guided implantation of drug-eluting stents for left main lesions: a single-center analysis of a 1,016-patient cohort. Patient Preference Adherence. 2014; 8: 1299–1309.
[65]
Chen L, Xu T, Xue X, Zhang J, Ye F, Tian N, et al. Intravascular ultrasound-guided drug-eluting stent implantation is associated with improved clinical outcomes in patients with unstable angina and complex coronary artery true bifurcation lesions. The International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging. 2018; 34: 1685–1696.
[66]
Chieffo A, Latib A, Caussin C, Presbitero P, Galli S, Menozzi A, et al. A prospective, randomized trial of intravascular-ultrasound guided compared to angiography guided stent implantation in complex coronary lesions: the AVIO trial. American Heart Journal. 2013; 165: 65–72.
[67]
Hong S, Kim B, Shin D, Nam C, Kim J, Ko Y, et al. Effect of Intravascular Ultrasound–Guided vs Angiography-Guided Everolimus-Eluting Stent Implantation. The Journal of the American Medical Association. 2015; 314: 2155.
[68]
Kim B, Shin D, Hong M, Park HS, Rha S, Mintz GS, et al. Clinical Impact of Intravascular Ultrasound–Guided Chronic Total Occlusion Intervention with Zotarolimus-Eluting Versus Biolimus-Eluting Stent Implantation. Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions. 2015; 8: e00259
[69]
Kim J, Kang T, Mintz GS, Park B, Shin D, Kim B, et al. Randomized Comparison of Clinical Outcomes between Intravascular Ultrasound and Angiography-Guided Drug-Eluting Stent Implantation for Long Coronary Artery Stenoses. JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions. 2013; 6: 369–376.
[70]
Tan Q, Wang Q, Liu D, Zhang S, Zhang Y, Li Y. Intravascular ultrasound-guided unprotected left main coronary artery stenting in the elderly. Saudi Medical Journal. 2015; 36: 549–553.
[71]
Tian N, Gami S, Ye F, Zhang J, Liu Z, Lin S, et al. Angiographic and clinical comparisons of intravascular ultrasound- versus angiography-guided drug-eluting stent implantation for patients with chronic total occlusion lesions: two-year results from a randomised AIR-CTO study. EuroIntervention. 2015; 10: 1409–1417.
[72]
Zhang J, Gao X, Kan J, Ge Z, Han L, Lu S, et al. Intravascular ultrasound-guided versus angiography-guided implantation of drug-eluting stent in all-comers: the ULTIMATE trial. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2018; 72: 3126–3137
[73]
Jakabčin J, Špaček R, Bystroň M, Kvašňák M, Jager J, Veselka J, et al. Long-term health outcome and mortality evaluation after invasive coronary treatment using drug eluting stents with or without the IVUS guidance. Randomized control trial. HOME DES IVUS. Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions. 2010; 75: 578–583.
[74]
Jian-Qi Zhang RS, Wei Pang Q, Guo Y, Xu J, Zhang Q, et al. Application of intravascular ultrasound in stent implantation for small coronary arteries. The Journal of Invasive Cardiology. 2016; 3: 1–8
[75]
Gao X, Wang Z, Wang F, Gu Y, Ge Z, Kong X, et al. Intravascular ultrasound guidance reduces cardiac death and coronary revascularization in patients undergoing drug-eluting stent implantation: results from a meta-analysis of 9 randomized trials and 4724 patients. The International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging. 2019; 35: 239–247.
[76]
Colombo A, Hall P, Nakamura S, Almagor Y, Maiello L, Martini G, et al. Intracoronary Stenting without Anticoagulation Accomplished with Intravascular Ultrasound Guidance. Circulation. 1995; 91: 1676–1688.
[77]
Correction to: 2021 ACC/AHA/SCAI guideline for Coronary artery revascularization: A report of the american college of cardiology/american heart association joint committee on clinical practice guidelines. Circulation. 2022; 145: e772.
[78]
Corrigendum to: 2018 ESC/Eacts Guidelines on myocardial revascularization. European Heart Journal. 2019; 40: 3096.
[79]
Gao X, Ge Z, Kong X, Kan J, Han L, Lu S, et al. 3-Year Outcomes of the ULTIMATE Trial Comparing Intravascular Ultrasound Versus Angiography-Guided Drug-Eluting Stent Implantation. JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions. 2021; 14: 247–257.
[80]
de la Torre Hernandez JM, Baz Alonso JA, Gómez Hospital JA, Alfonso Manterola F, Garcia Camarero T, Gimeno de Carlos F, et al. Clinical Impact of Intravascular Ultrasound Guidance in Drug-Eluting Stent Implantation for Unprotected Left Main Coronary Disease: pooled analysis at the patient-level of 4 registries. JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions. 2014; 7: 244–254.
[81]
Ye Y, Yang M, Zhang S, Zeng Y. Percutaneous coronary intervention in left main coronary artery disease with or without intravascular ultrasound: a meta-analysis. PLoS ONE. 2017; 12: e0179756.
[82]
Kang D, Ahn J, Yun S, Park H, Cho S, Kim TO, et al. Long-Term Clinical Impact of Intravascular Ultrasound Guidance in Stenting for Left Main Coronary Artery Disease. Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions. 2021; 14: e011011.
[83]
Mariani J, De Fazzio FR, Bernardi FLM, de Alencar Araripe Falcão B, Bezerra CG, Filho AE, et al. Minimized contrast use with intravascular ultrasound-guidance percutaneous coronary intervention. one-year follow-up of the MOZART randomized study. Revista Brasileira De Cardiologia Invasiva (English Edition). 2015; 23: 247–250.
[84]
Ali ZA, Karimi Galougahi K, Nazif T, Maehara A, Hardy MA, Cohen DJ, et al. Imaging- and physiology-guided percutaneous coronary intervention without contrast administration in advanced renal failure: a feasibility, safety, and outcome study. European Heart Journal. 2016; 37: 3090–3095.
[85]
Kumar P, Jino B, Shafeeq A, Roy S, Rajendran M, Villoth SG. IVUS-Guided Zero-Contrast PCI in CKD Patients: Safety and Short-Term Outcome in Patients with Complex Demographics and/or Lesion Characteristics. Journal of Interventional Cardiology. 2021; 2021: 1–7.
[86]
Park H, Ahn J, Kang D, Lee J, Park S, Ko E, et al. Optimal stenting technique for complex coronary lesions: intracoronary imaging-guided pre-dilation, stent sizing, and post-dilation. JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions. 2020; 13: 1403–1413.
[87]
Alberti A, Giudice P, Gelera A, Stefanini L, Priest V, Simmonds M, et al. Understanding the economic impact of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS). The European Journal of Health Economics. 2015; 17: 185–193.
[88]
Kirtane AJ, Stoler R, Feldman R, Neumann F, Boutis L, Tahirkheli N, et al. Primary Results of the EVOLVE Short DAPT Study. Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions. 2021; 14: e010144.
[89]
Prati F, Di Vito L, Biondi-Zoccai G, Occhipinti M, La Manna A, Tamburino C, et al. Angiography alone versus angiography plus optical coherence tomography to guide decision-making during percutaneous coronary intervention: the Centro per la Lotta contro l’Infarto-Optimisation of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (CLI-OPCI) study. EuroIntervention. 2012; 8: 823–829.
[90]
Sheth TN, Kajander OA, Lavi S, Bhindi R, Cantor WJ, Cheema AN, et al. Optical Coherence Tomography–Guided Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in ST-Segment–Elevation Myocardial Infarction: a prospective propensity-matched cohort of the thrombectomy versus percutaneous coronary intervention alone trial. Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions. 2016; 9: e003414.
[91]
Iannaccone M, D’Ascenzo F, Frangieh AH, Niccoli G, Ugo F, Boccuzzi G, et al. Impact of an optical coherence tomography guided approach in acute coronary syndromes: a propensity matched analysis from the international FORMIDABLE-CARDIOGROUP IV and USZ registry. Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions. 2017; 90: E46–E52.
[92]
Wijns W, Shite J, Jones MR, Lee SW-, Price MJ, Fabbiocchi F, et al. Optical coherence tomography imaging during percutaneous coronary intervention impacts physician decision-making: ILUMIEN i study. European Heart Journal. 2015; 36: 3346–3355.
[93]
Meneveau N, Souteyrand G, Motreff P, Caussin C, Amabile N, Ohlmann P, et al. Optical Coherence Tomography to Optimize Results of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients with Non–ST-Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome: results of the multicenter, randomized DOCTORS Study (Does Optical Coherence Tomography Optimize Results of Stenting). Circulation. 2016; 134: 906–917.
[94]
Antonsen L, Thayssen P, Maehara A, Hansen HS, Junker A, Veien KT, et al. Optical Coherence Tomography Guided Percutaneous Coronary Intervention with Nobori Stent Implantation in Patients with Non–ST-Segment–Elevation Myocardial Infarction (OCTACS) Trial: difference in strut coverage and dynamic malapposition patterns at 6 months. Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions. 2015; 8: e002446.
[95]
Lee S, Kim J, Yoon H, Hur S, Lee S, Kim JW, et al. Early Strut Coverage in Patients Receiving Drug-Eluting Stents and its Implications for Dual Antiplatelet Therapy: A Randomized Trial. JACC: Cardiovascular Imaging. 2018; 11: 1810–1819.
[96]
Ali Z, Landmesser U, Karimi Galougahi K, Maehara A, Matsumura M, Shlofmitz RA, et al. Optical coherence tomography-guided coronary stent implantation compared to angiography: a multicentre randomised trial in PCI – design and rationale of ILUMIEN IV: OPTIMAL PCI. EuroIntervention. 2021; 16: 1092–1099.
[97]
Ono M, Kawashima H, Hara H, Gao C, Wang R, Kogame N, et al. Advances in IVUS/OCT and Future Clinical Perspective of Novel Hybrid Catheter System in Coronary Imaging. Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine. 2020; 7: 119.
[98]
Abbott receives FDA clearance for its imaging technology using artificial intelligence for vessels in the heart. Abbott MediaRoom. 2021. Available at: https://abbott.mediaroom.com/2021-08-03-Abbott-Receives-FDA-Clearance-for-its-Imaging-Technology-Using-Artificial-Intelligence-for-Vessels-in-the-Heart (Accessed: 9 April 2022).
[99]
Wilkinson SE, Madder RD. Intracoronary near-infrared spectroscopy—role and clinical applications. Cardiovascular Diagnosis and Therapy. 2020; 10: 1508–1516.
[100]
Waksman R, Di Mario C, Torguson R, Ali ZA, Singh V, Skinner WH, et al. Identification of patients and plaques vulnerable to future coronary events with near-infrared spectroscopy intravascular ultrasound imaging: A prospective, cohort study. The Lancet. 2019; 394: 1629–1637.
[101]
Stone GW, Maehara A, Muller JE, Rizik DG, Shunk KA, Ben-Yehuda O, et al. Plaque characterization to inform the prediction and prevention of periprocedural myocardial infarction during percutaneous coronary intervention. JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions. 2015; 8: 927–936.
Share
Back to top
Rev. Cardiovasc. Med. Print ISSN 1530-6550 Electronic ISSN 2153-8174
Disclaimer
We use cookies on our website to ensure you get the best experience.
Read more about our cookies here
Accept