IMR Press / RCM / Volume 24 / Issue 1 / DOI: 10.31083/j.rcm2401026
Cite this article
Nanoparticles: Properties, applications and toxicities
312
Downloads
1
Citations
925
Views
Submit to RCM
Review for RCM
Apply for Special Issue
Chapters
References
Abstract
Keywords
1. Introduction
2. Anatomical and Pathophysiological Characteristics of LMCA Disease
3. Imaging Modalities for LMCA Disease Depiction
4. Choosing the Optimal Imaging Modality for LMCA Disease
5. Future Perspectives
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Ethics Approval and Consent to Participate
Acknowledgment
Funding
Conflict of Interest
References
Open Access Review
Imaging of Left Main Coronary Artery; Untangling the Gordian Knot
Anastasios Apostolos1,2,*, Andreas Gerakaris1, Evropi Tsoni1, Konstantinos Pappelis3, Georgios Vasilagkos1, Elena Bousoula4, Athanasios Moulias1, Konstantinos Konstantinou2, Kyriakos Dimitriadis2, Grigoris V. Karamasis5, Adel Aminian6, Konstantinos Toutouzas2, Periklis Davlouros1, Grigorios Tsigkas1
Show Less
1 Department of Cardiology, University Hospital of Patras, 26504 Patras, Greece
2 First Department of Cardiology, Medical School, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Hippokration Hospital, 11527 Athens, Greece
3 Department of Ophthalmology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, 9700 Groningen, The Netherlands
4 Cardiology Department, Tzaneio Hospital, 18536 Pireaus, Greece
5 Second Department of Cardiology, Medical School, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Attikon University Hospital, 12462 Athens, Greece
6 Department of Cardiology, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Charleroi, 6042 Charleroi, Belgium
*Correspondence: anastasisapostolos@gmail.com (Anastasios Apostolos)
Academic Editor: Jerome L. Fleg
Rev. Cardiovasc. Med. 2023, 24(1), 26; https://doi.org/10.31083/j.rcm2401026
Submitted: 27 September 2022 | Revised: 2 December 2022 | Accepted: 2 December 2022 | Published: 12 January 2023
Copyright: © 2023 The Author(s). Published by IMR Press.
This is an open access article under the CC BY 4.0 license.
Download PDF
Cite
Abstract

Left Main Coronary Artery (LMCA) disease is considered a standout manifestation of coronary artery disease (CAD), because it is accompanied by the highest mortality. Increased mortality is expected, because LMCA is responsible for supplying up to 80% of total blood flow to the left ventricle in a right-dominant coronary system. Due to the significant progress of biomedical technology, the modern drug-eluting stents have remarkably improved the prognosis of patients with LMCA disease treated invasively. In fact, numerous randomized trials provided similar results in one- and five-year survival of patients treated with percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) -guided with optimal imaging and coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG). However, interventional treatment requires optimal imaging of the LMCA disease, such as intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) and optical coherence tomography (OCT). The aim of this manuscript is to review the main pathophysiological characteristics, to present the imaging techniques of LMCA, and, last, to discuss the future directions in the depiction of LMCA disease.

Keywords
left main disease
left main coronary artery
invasive coronary angiography
intravascular ultrasound
IVUS
optical coherence tomography
OCT
percutaneous coronary intervention
PCI
1. Introduction

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains the leading cause of death globally, responsible for approximately 17.9 million deaths in 2016 [1, 2, 3, 4]. Coronary artery disease (CAD), presented either as an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) or chronic coronary syndrome (CCS), is the main manifestation of CVD, affecting the majority of cardiac patients and being the operative event for most heart diseases [5, 6, 7, 8].

Left Main Coronary Artery (LMCA) disease is considered a standout manifestation of CAD, because it is accompanied by the highest mortality. When left untreated, the three-year mortality is estimated at 63%, which is considerably higher than in coronary lesions located in other segments of the coronary artery tree [9]. Taking into consideration the anatomy and physiology of the coronary circulation, increased mortality is expected, because LMCA is responsible for supplying up to 80% of total blood flow to the left ventricle (LV) in a right-dominant coronary system [10]. Thus, occlusion of the LMCA puts a significant portion of the myocardium under high risk. LMCA disease is a frequent finding in invasive coronary angiography (ICA). It is estimated that about 4% of ICA examinations reveal LMCA disease [11]. In addition, ICA reveals LMCA stenosis in about 5% and 7% of patients with stable angina and acute syndrome, respectively [12]. About 5–10% of these patients present isolated LMCA [13].

The non-pharmaceutical treatment of LMCA disease has contributed to reduction in morbidity and mortality. Until recently, surgery was considered the gold standard approach for patients suffering from LMCA disease. Nowadays, both surgical and interventional revascularization have achieved comparable results in long-term follow-up; thus, a personalized approach is required for selecting the optimal therapeutic strategy [14, 15, 16].

The aim of this manuscript is to review the main pathophysiological characteristics, to present the imaging techniques of LMCA and, last, to shed light on the future directions in the depiction of this disease.

2. Anatomical and Pathophysiological Characteristics of LMCA Disease

Typically, the LMCA arises from the aorta, below the sinotubular junction and especially from the left sinus of Valsalva. It runs between the pulmonary trunk and the left atrial appendage and ends up bifurcating into two major branches: the Left Anterior Descending (LAD) and the Left Circumflex (LCx) artery [17]. A third branch, known as the intermediate ramus, arises from the LMCA in 30% of the general population [17]. The LMCA can be divided in three areas: the ostium, the trunk or shaft, and the distal vessel. The shaft and distal vessel present similar morphology; similar to epicardial vessels, they are composed of three layers (adventitia, median, and intima). Nevertheless, the ostium lacks an adventitia layer and presents more elasticity, compared to other coronary vessels [18]. The total length of the LMCA is estimated at about 10.5 ± 5.3 mm, while the mean diameter is estimated at 3.9 ± 0.4 mm and 4.5 ± 0.5 mm in women and men, respectively [19]. Moreover, cases have been described in which the LMCA does not exist and the LAD and LCx have separate orifices; the prevalence of this anatomical variation is estimated between 0.2% and 1.6% [20, 21].

Interestingly, the composition of the atherosclerotic plaque of the LMCA differs significantly from lesions in other segments of the coronary artery tree. Specifically, LMCA plaques are characterized by minimal necrotic core content and thicker cap fibroatheroma [22, 23]. Regarding the plaque distribution, atherosclerotic plaques develop more frequently in segments with lower shear stress; thus, the most common locations of these lesions are the lateral walls of the bifurcation to the LAD and LCx [24]. Atherosclerotic lesions rarely appear on the carina of the bifurcation, probably due to the high shear stress at this location [25]. Due to the above hydrological phenomena, thrombus formation in LMCA could be rarely observed. Nevertheless, it could be observed in special situations, such as cocaine use [26]. The vast majority of plaques are located in the distal part of the LMCA and are frequently extended to the proximal LAD, while the ostium is rarely implicated [27, 28]. However, lesions appear mainly near the ostium and not at the bifurcation in the short LMCA (<10 mm), probably due to the high shear stress and rheological laws [29]. The site of plaques has significant prognostic role, because percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) in lesions of the distal LMCA is technically more demanding and with poorer outcomes [30]. When LCx imaging is suboptimal and ostia disease exists, intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) or optical coherence tomography (OCT) are useful for choosing the optimal bifurcation strategy: an upfront two-stent or provisional stenting strategy [31].

3. Imaging Modalities for LMCA Disease Depiction

Current guidelines support PCI as an alternative and equivalent treatment to surgical revascularization in patients with LMCA disease and low or intermediate (SYNTAX Synergy Between PCI With Taxus and coronary artery bypass surgery [CABG]) score [32]. These patients are unsuitable for surgery or present less complex disease. Patients with high (>32) SYNTAX score should be treated surgically. Intravascular imaging is considered mandatory before LMCA stenting, for the achievement of optimal results [32].

Imaging of LMCA stenosis is considered critical for its optimal evaluation and ideal management. As a result of progress in interventional cardiology, there exist both invasive and noninvasive methods to this end. Invasive assessment includes OCT and IVUS, whereas noninvasive includes mostly coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) [33]. Each imaging modality provides both advantages and disadvantages, which are analyzed below (Graphical abstract figure).

ICA remains the gold standard and the first-line diagnostic tool used in LMCA disease. Currently, transradial and distal transradial transluminal angiography is a safe and fast procedure, providing the cardiologist with the opportunity to perform all required interventions [34, 35]. Historically, an angiographic diameter stenosis of more than 50% of the LMCA lumen has been established as a cutoff limit for distinguishing significant disease. Patients with stenosis greater than 50% of the lumen’s diameter should be treated invasively or surgically. However, the degree of stenosis plays a pivotal role in the prognosis of such patients. Numerous studies have supported that patients with an estimated stenosis between 50 and 70% have significantly higher survival than those with stenosis exceeding 70% [36].

Nevertheless, the interpretation of angiographic views of the LMCA is frequently a challenge for invasive cardiologists. Several issues, such as overlap of branches, eccentric plaques, two-dimensional imaging, foreshortening of arteries, catheter displacement, and angle view of the LMCA, could lead to misinterpretation of disease severity. Moreover, angiographic evaluation remains subjective and may differ among operators. Generally, pathological studies support that ICA underestimates the extent of LMCA disease.

Taking the above into consideration, ICA remains the first step in the invasive assessment of LMCA disease, but is inadequate alone; thus, other techniques should accompany it for more accurate evaluation of the lesions, especially in patients with moderate stenosis (40–70%).

3.1 Coronary Computed Tomography Angiography (CCTA)

CCTA is the only noninvasive modality used in LMCA imaging. The examination is identical to conventional computed tomography; nevertheless, it is synchronized with electrocardiogram and special software is required for image processing [37]. Generally, CCTA provides high negative predictive value and it can confidently rule out obstructive CAD. Consequently, the necessity for ICA is significantly reduced. For patients with LMCA disease, CCTA provided an accuracy of 97.4% for the detection of CAD [38]. Dharampal et al. [39] supported that CCTA accurately detected and excluded left main and/or three-vessel CAD. Moreover, they estimated that the sensitivity, specificity, positive, and negative predictive value were 95%, 83%, 53%, and 99%, respectively. However, CCTA overestimates high-risk CAD in 47% of the patients [39]. CCTA played a crucial role in the recent ISCHEMIA trial, as it was used for excluding patients with LMCA disease. Indeed, its diagnostic ability was confirmed, as ICA revealed LMCA stenosis of more than 50% in only 2.9% patients without LMCA disease, according to CCTA [40]. In addition, CCTA could be used in patients with anomalous LMCA origin, in patients suffering from catheter-induced vasospasm, and in those having undergone coronary artery bypass surgery [41, 42, 43]. Last, CCTA has been proven as an acceptable solution for the detection of in-stent stenosis in LMCA. Although it remains inferior to ICA, it could be a safe and fast solution for the evaluation of patients treated with PCI [44, 45].

However, CCTA presents several limitations that should be addressed. First, it tends to overestimate stenosis severity, compared to ICA. Second, it is frequently affected by motion artefacts, caused by cardiac or breathing motion. As a result, CCTA should be avoided in patients with extensive coronary calcification, irregular heart rate, significant obesity, and inability to cooperate [14].

3.2 Intravascular Ultrasound (IVUS)

With over two decades of conventional use in LMCA disease evaluation, grayscale IVUS represents the mainstay of the LMCA intermediate lesions assessment [46]. A small transducer is mounted at the tip of a flexible catheter, emitting ultrasound in the 10 to 60 MHz range, utilizing ultrasonography and acoustic properties for tissue characterization. Two types of IVUS catheters are used in current clinical practice; the mechanical and the phased array. The former has a single mechanical head placed on the tip, which rotates to visualize the coronary artery cross-sectionally [47]. Generally, image quality seems to be superior using the mechanical transducer, with an overall resolution estimated between 100 and 150 micrometers. Newer-generation devices provided higher frequency and, as a result, improved the resolution. However, the higher the frequency, the poorer the penetration and the more increased the reflectivity of blood, which limit its clinical applications. Phased array catheters are equipped with multiple transducers, which are fixed in specific positions. Each transducer acts as a single unit; all signals are collected and then the IVUS image is created. This modality requires more sophisticated and advanced technology, in order to produce a sufficient optical result.

Different measurements can be obtained by the IVUS, but the clinically relevant measurement of IVUS is the minimum luminal area (MLA). MLA has been studied extensively and can accurately predict whether revascularization is required or can be avoided [48]. Initial reports demonstrated that MLA less than 9 mm2 or lumen stenosis greater than 50% constitute a hemodynamically significant stenosis. Fassa and colleagues decreased the lower limit of MLA to 7.5 mm2 and major cardiovascular events (MACE) rates in patients treated invasively and pharmaceutically did not show any differences in three years of follow-up, using this threshold [49]. Numerous trials have studied different MLA thresholds with comparable results, presented in Table 1 (Ref. [49, 50, 51, 52, 53]). Currents guidelines have set the cutoff at 6.0 mm2, which could be applied globally [50]. In the recent EXCEL trial, which compared PCI with CABG for LMCA disease, this value was used as the cutoff in MLA [54]. Smaller MLA thresholds have been studied in specific populations and larger trials are required for validation of their results. According to the recent European position paper on intravascular imaging, LMCA IVUS-derived MLA >6 mm2 could be safely deemed non-ischemic, <4.5 mm2 should be regarded as ischemia-generating, and the intermediate values are considered as ‘grey-zone’, thus further assessment of ischemia should be performed [55].

Table 1.Studies comparing the optimal MLA threshold.
First author Year of publication Number of patients MLA threshold
Jasti et al. [52] 2004 55 ≤5.9 mm2
Fassa et al. [49] 2005 214 <7.5 mm2
de la Torre Hernandez et al. [50] 2011 354 <6 mm2
Kang et al. [51] 2011 403 <4.8 mm2
Park et al. [53] 2014 112 <4.5 mm2
MLA, Minimum Lumen Area.

Another feature of LMCA lesions is the existence of calcification, which is systematically underestimated in ICA. The identification and quantification of calcium is crucial because its presence is associated with poorer prognosis and suboptimal stent placement. Significant calcification could drive the carina to shift toward the LCx; thus, the kissing-balloon technique should be performed [56]. Indeed, calcium allocation affects the therapeutic algorithm; when the calcific arch surpasses 180°, a dedicated plaque modification strategy of calcified lesions is suggested. Rotational atherectomy remains a reliable approach for pre-treatment of heavily calcified lesions, with acceptable in-hospital results [57]. Intravascular lithotripsy could be also considered for lesion preparation in calcific distal LMCA disease [58, 59, 60, 61]. When extensive calcification or high plaque load is located in bifurcations, the optimal technique is kissing balloons. In the remaining cases, pre-dilation with noncompliant balloons could be considered a sufficient treatment choice [62].

In addition to the assessment of LMCA disease, IVUS is used for PCI guidance, before and after stent implantation. Prior to PCI, the operators should use IVUS, in order to characterize the plaque composition and distribution, to select the suitable stent length and size, and, last, to consider whether alternative interventions (lithotripsy or atherectomy) should be applied. After the stent’s placement, IVUS should be performed to optimize the end result by assessing the plaque coverage and sufficient stent expansion [63].

Stent underexpansion has been demonstrated as the main risk factor for stent thrombosis and target lesion failure [64]. Moreover, suboptimal stent expansion has been correlated with hard endpoints, as it has been established as a serious prognostic factor for MACEs in 403 patients (adjusted. Hazard ratio: 5.56; 95% Confidence Intervals: 1.99–15.49; p = 0.001) [51]. The authors presented the minimum stent area (MSA) required in each segment of the LMCA to prevent significantly in-stent stenosis and MACEs. More specifically, the proposed MSA thresholds were 5.0 mm2 for the LCx ostium, 6.3 mm2 for the LAD ostium, 7.2 mm2 for the polygon of confluence, and 8.2 mm2 for the LMCA. These cutoffs also known as the “5-6-7-8 rule” concern Korean patients, whereas in Caucasians larger stent areas are needed, due to the greater body surface area. The prognostic role of MSA was validated by the recent EXCEL trial, which showed that the greater values of MSA are associated with less adverse events [54]. Notably, stent malposition was not correlated with more local or systemic complications, but further studies are required to confirm this finding [51].

Real-world practice has shown that performing IVUS in LMCA disease management is highly beneficial. To the best of our knowledge, Saleem et al. [65] have conducted the largest meta-analysis about the prognostic role of IVUS on LMCA disease management. A total of 12 studies (2 randomized-controlled trials [RCTs] and 10 observational studies) were analyzed, resulting in considerable results; all-cause mortality (OR: 0.57, 95% CI: 0.46–0.70, p < 0.00001), cardiovascular mortality (OR: 0.37, 95% CI: 0.26–0.54, p < 0.00001), left-main revascularization (OR: 0.63, 95% CI: 0.45–0.89, p = 0.009), and myocardial infarction (OR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.66–0.97, p = 0.02) were significantly lower in the IVUS-guided arm [65]. Moreover, Ye and colleagues [66] included ten studies totaling more than 6400 patients, concluding that significant benefit from IVUS-guided PCI exists. More specifically, IVUS-guided PCI was linked to a significantly lower risk of all-cause death (risk ratio (RR): 0.60; 95% CI: 0.47–0.75; p < 0.001), cardiac death (RR: 0.47; 95% CI: 0.33–0.66; p < 0.001), target lesion revascularization (TLR) (RR: 0.43; 95% CI: 0.25–0.73; p = 0.002), and stent thrombosis (RR: 0.28; 95% CI: 0.12–0.67; p = 0.004) [66]. These findings were confirmed by other smaller meta-analyses [67, 68]. These meta-analyses retrieved data from numerous observational studies and RCTs, which are reviewed in Table 2 (Ref. [69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79]).

Table 2.Main studies comparing IVUS-guided and ICA-guided PCI in LMCA disease.
First author Year of publication Country Design Centers Number of patients Follow-up Highlights
Park et al. [69] 2009 Korea Observational registry Multicenter 756/219 3 ↓ mortality rate in IVUS-guided arm
∼ MI and TVF
de la Torre Hernandez et al. [70] 2014 Spain Pooled analysis of observational registries Multicenter 505/1165 3 ↓ composite endpoint (cardiac death, MI or TLR) in IVUS-guided arm
↓ all-cause mortality in IVUS-guided arm
↓ stent thrombosis in IVUS-guided arm
Gao et al. [71] 2014 China Observational Single Center 337/679 1 ↓ composite endpoint (cardiac death, MI or TLR) in IVUS-guided arm
Tan et al. [72] 2015 Saudi Arabia Randomized Single Center 61/62 2 ∼ MI and death
↓ TVF
Kim et al. [73] 2017 Korea Observational Single Center 122/74 3 ∼ all-cause, cardiovascular mortality and MI
Andell et al. [74] 2017 Sweden Observational registry Multicenter 621/1847 10 ↓ Composite endpoint (all-cause death, restenosis, or definite stent thrombosis) in IVUS-guided arm
↓ all-cause death in IVUS-guided arm
Tian et al. [75] 2017 China Observational Single Center 713/1186 3 ↓ all-cause mortality in IVUS-guided arm
↓ MI in IVUS-guided arm
Liu et al. [76] 2019 China Randomized Single Center 167/169 1 ↓ composite endpoint (cardiac death, MI or TVF) in IVUS-guided arm
∼ stent thrombosis
Choi et al. [77] 2019 Korea Observational Single Center 453/251 5 ↓ cardiac death and adverse events in IVUS-guided arm
Kinnaird et al. [78] 2020 United Kingdom Observational Registry Multicenter 5056/6208 1 ↓ composite endpoint (death, stroke or MI) in IVUS-guided arm
↑ one- and twelve months survival in IVUS-guided arm
de la Torre Hernandez et al. [79] 2020 Spain Observational Registry Multicenter 124/124 1 ↓ composite endpoint (cardiac death, LMCA-related MI and LMCA revascularization)
ICA, Invasive Coronary Angiography; IVUS, Intravascular Ultrasound Imaging; MI, Myocardial Infraction; LMCA, Left Main Coronary Artery; PCI, Percutaneous Coronary Interventions; TLR, Target Lesion Revascularization; TVF, Target Vessel Failure.
3.3 Optical Coherence Tomography

OCT is a modern imaging modality used in several medical fields, such as ophthalmology and cardiology [80, 81, 82]. OCT uses coherent infrared light to depict the microstructure within coronary arteries. The technology of OCT provides better resolution than IVUS; however, the penetrating imaging depth into the arterial wall is significantly smaller [83]. Similar to IVUS catheters, OCT catheters contain an OCT head at the distal tip of the catheter. During the examination, automatic pullback and rotation of the catheter creates cross-sectional views of the coronary arteries. Contrast medium or other solutions are necessary, because blood reduces the quality of the OCT images [84].

During OCT imaging, normal coronary arteries are depicted as circular structures with three layers: the inner layer represents the internal elastic membrane, the middle, dark layer corresponds to the median layer, and the outer layer is the external elastic lamina [85, 86].

Similar to IVUS, OCT should be performed before angioplasty for the evaluation of plaque composition and extent, the identification of the lesion’s anatomical characteristics, and the choice of the appropriate stent size. Moreover, OCT has been deemed reliable for detecting vulnerable plaque. According to the existing knowledge, atherosclerotic plaques with specific morphological characteristics are more prone to rupture and promote thrombosis, which subsequently leads to the clinical manifestation of ACS. Due to its high resolution, OCT can detect timely and precisely these characteristics, such as the thickness of the overlying fibrous plaque, and contribute to improved invasive and pharmaceutical management [87]. OCT imaging post PCI is of paramount importance for optimal stent deployment and timely recognition of post-procedural complications [87, 88].

OCT is less studied than IVUS in LMCA disease. The ROCK I trial compared OCT-guided LMCA PCI with standard (angiographic ± IVUS) PCI, retrospectively. Although no clinical difference was observed between the two groups, late lumen loss tended to be lower in the OCT arm and was significantly reduced in the distal part of the main vessel. Moreover, OCT-guidance contributed to the detection of cases with underexpansion and malposition of stents [89].

Roule and colleagues [90] supported that more than 90% of the quadrants of the LMCA were adequately assessable by newer-generation OCT, while most artifacts were located at the proximal part of the LM. A study by Burzotta et al. [91] confirmed that the OCT evaluation of the distal LM is more accurate and efficient, compared to the more proximal segments of the LMCA, where the diagnostic ability of OCT is poor.

Bouki et al. [92] confirmed the inability of OCT to evaluate proximal lesions, as only half of the plaques located in the proximal LMCA could be analyzed. Moreover, they claimed that the OCT-derived MLA of ≤5.38 mm2 accurately predicts the functional severity of LMCA disease. Nevertheless, further studies with OCT should be conducted for defining OCT-derived MLA criteria and not extrapolating data by IVUS, due to the existing discrepancy between the two methods [48].

The first prospective trial assessing the role of OCT in LMCA PCI, according to a prespecified protocol, is LEMON. Sufficient stent expansion was noticed in 86%, edge dissection in 30%, and residual strut malapposition in 24% of the patients. Interestingly, approximately one in four operators (26%) changed their therapeutic strategy because of the post-PCI OCT, despite the sufficient angiographic results [93].

The presence of calcium in LMCA lesions has been associated with higher rates of stent thrombosis, target vessel failure, and myocardial infraction [94, 95, 96]. Although IVUS can provide decent information about calcified lesions, OCT is more precise in estimating calcium thickness and whether it can affect stent expansion. It has been reported that patients with calcium deposit with a maximum angle greater than 180°, length more than 5 mm, and maximum thickness higher than 0.5 mm were at risk of stent underexpansion and subsequent stent stenosis [97]. In such cases, the interventional cardiologists could perform special techniques, such as rotational atherectomy, balloon dilation, or lithotripsy, in order to appropriately modify the plaques.

OCT is useful for evaluating stent failure. Specifically, OCT could provide critical information regarding the underlying mechanism of failure, such as neoatherosclerosis, neointimal hyperplasia, stent thrombosis, underexpansion, or fracture. Thus, the appropriate treatment could be chosen and preventive measures for repetitive stent failure could be applied [98]. However, OCT usage demands higher dose of contrast agent and could be a major problem in patients with renal impairment. Taking into consideration that LMCA and PCI requires multiple periprocedural manipulations and increased contrast agent dose, OCT should be performed with caution in such patients. In this regard, low- or no-contrast administration during OCT has been investigated [99].

4. Choosing the Optimal Imaging Modality for LMCA Disease

Owing to all the aforementioned imaging modalities, modern interventional cardiologists can handle LMCA disease more efficiently, compared to a decade ago. First, CCTA can rule out moderate or severe LMCA disease noninvasively. ICA remains the gold standard for evaluating CAD; however, every intervention performed in LMCA should be assisted by IVUS or OCT. It is evident that OCT- or IVUS-guided PCI is superior to angiographic-guided angioplasty in almost every case of LMCA stenting [100].

A few studies have directly compared IVUS and OCT in the management of left main disease. Fujino and colleagues [101] were the first to directly compare newer-generation OCT and IVUS in a prospective cohort, by performing both OCT and IVUS pre- and post-PCI in 35 patients. The two techniques achieved comparable results in measuring mean lumen and stent areas (11.24 ± 2.66 vs. 10.85 ± 2.47 mm2, p = 0.13 and 10.44 ± 2.33 vs. 10.49 ± 2.32 mm2, p = 0.82, respectively); OCT was superior in detecting stent malapposition and distal edge dissections. However, IVUS produced more comprehensive and qualitative images, in total, mainly in the ostial LMCA [101].

A recent study compared three-dimensional OCT versus IVUS in LMCA disease stenting. In more than 300 patients included, the cumulative rate of the primary endpoint (a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization) was comparable between the two, both before and after propensity score adjustment (7.0% vs. 7.4%, p = 0.98 and 2.6% vs. 7.3%, p = 0.18). Thus, three-dimensional OCT- and IVUS-guided angioplasty for LMCA disease were equally feasible and safe [102].

The ROCK cohort II study was a multicenter, investigator-initiated, retrospective study which compared the performance of intravascular imaging modalities and angiography in patients undergoing distal-LMCA angioplasty. The authors did not identify any differences between OCT and IVUS with regards to the target-lesion failure [103].

Generally, IVUS has been studied more extensively in LM disease, resulting in greater familiarization and clinical experience. Due to the higher penetration depth, IVUS can image all the arterial layers and assess coronary artery remodeling. Undoubtedly, IVUS outbalances OCT in the imaging of ostial disease; arteries with large diameter (especially larger than 4 mm) present higher risk for blood contamination, which negatively affects OCT image quality. While OCT is less studied in LMCA disease, it provides significantly higher resolution and depicts the details of plaques and stents more accurately. As a result, OCT remains superior regarding stent underexpansion, dissection or malapposition, as well as in thrombi imaging.

Calcified lesions are a “grey-zone”: for intravascular imaging. OCT provides more information about calcium depth and IVUS can adequately visualize only the superficial calcium layer.

Moreover, OCT requires more contrast agent during the procedure to achieve better image quality. Thus, IVUS should probably be preferred in patients with renal impairment.

5. Future Perspectives

During the two last decades, intravascular imaging modalities have developed remarkably, but further steps are required for the better depiction, evaluation, and management of LMCA lesions. Regarding OCT, the lack of a well-established threshold for MLA remains an important limitation. Ongoing studies, such as OCTOBER (NCT03171311, clinicaltrials.gov) and ILUMUEN IV (NCT03507777, clinicaltrials.gov) should set the cutoff for OCT and investigate its role in clinical practice more comprehensively.

The progress in technology and biophysics will significantly contribute to the evolution of IVUS. The first devices combining IVUS with near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) have been recently released. Although the existing literature is limited, integrated IVUS-NIRS systems are thought to provide more detailed information regarding atherosclerotic plaque morphology and erosion risk [104, 105]. However, no study on the applications of IVUS-NIRS in LMCA disease has been conducted yet. The combination of IVUS with OCT may attract attention in the near future. Simultaneous performance of OCT and IVUS examination as co-registration has been applied in some catheterization laboratories [106]. Moreover, IVUS and OCT were integrated into a hybrid, single catheter system. The novel, hybrid OCT-IVUS catheter aims to achieve optimal depiction of lesions in the coronary arteries [107]. Invasive imaging could play a role in the management of less frequent causes of ACS, such spontaneous coronary artery dissection (SCAD). Because SCAD is poorly described and extremely rare in LMCA, further studies are required in order to identify the real benefit of using intravascular imaging in these cases [108, 109].

Nevertheless, intravascular imaging cannot be considered as panacea, because it might not be suggestive in several cases. On the other hand, the assessment of coronary physiology using fractional flow reserve (FFR) could be assistive [110, 111]. The combination of these methods could contribute to the optimal management of such patients; nevertheless, further studies are required to confirm this claim, especially as far as LMCA disease is concerned [35, 112]. For ‘grey-zone’ lesions, in which the optimal management remains unclear, the IVUS ‘virtual histology’ option could be helpful. This is an IVUS-based post-processing modality for spectral interpretation of the primary raw backscattered radiofrequency. After the processing of black and white images, the tissues are color-coded as four major components; dense calcium (white), necrotic core (red), fibro-fatty (light green), and fibrous tissue (dark green) [113, 114].

Newer technologies will allow three dimensional (3D)-reconstruction to achieve a more realistic depiction of the anatomy and morphology of the lesions [115, 116]. Moreover, artificial intelligence and deep learning systems will expand intravascular imaging capabilities [117, 118].

6. Conclusions

In conclusion, imaging in LMCA disease is crucial for achieving optimal results. Especially in patients undergoing PCI, intravascular imaging is considered as mandatory before, during, and after angioplasty. IVUS has been performed and studied more extensively, but OCT provides special advantages. Undoubtedly, the progress in technology will evolve intravascular imaging modalities, increasing their precision in challenging cases, such as patients with LMCA disease.

Author Contributions

AApo, AG, ET, EB and GV screened the literature for relevant articles. AApo, AM, KT, PD and GT were involved with methodology and conceptualization of the manuscript. AApo, AG, KK and GT wrote the first version of manuscript. AAmi, KP, GK, KD and GT evaluated the revised form. All the authors have read the final version of manuscript.

Ethics Approval and Consent to Participate

Not applicable.

Acknowledgment

Not applicable.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. Anastasios Apostolos, Athanasios Moulias, and Grigorios Tsigkas are serving as Guest Editors of this journal. We declare that Anastasios Apostolos, Athanasios Moulias, and Grigorios Tsigkas had no involvement in the peer review of this article and have no access to information regarding its peer review. Full responsibility for the editorial process for this article was delegated to Jerome L. Fleg.

References
[1]
Virani SS, Alonso A, Benjamin EJ, Bittencourt MS, Callaway CW, Carson AP, et al. Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics-2020 Update: A Report From the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2020; 141: e139–e596.
[2]
World Health Organisation. Cardiovascular diseases. 2017. Available at: https://www.who.int/health-topics/cardiovascular-diseases/#tab=tab_1 (Accessed: 20 September 2020).
[3]
Tsigkas G, Apostolos A, Despotopoulos S, Vasilagkos G, Kallergis E, Leventopoulos G, et al. Heart failure and atrial fibrillation: new concepts in pathophysiology, management, and future directions. Heart Failure Reviews. 2022; 27: 1201–1210.
[4]
Khan MA, Hashim MJ, Mustafa H, Baniyas MY, Al Suwaidi SKBM, AlKatheeri R, et al. Global Epidemiology of Ischemic Heart Disease: Results from the Global Burden of Disease Study. Cureus. 2020; 12: e9349.
[5]
Doenst T, Haverich A, Serruys P, Bonow RO, Kappetein P, Falk V, et al. PCI and CABG for Treating Stable Coronary Artery Disease: JACC Review Topic of the Week. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2019; 73: 964–976.
[6]
Tsigkas G, Apostolos A, Despotopoulos S, Vasilagkos G, Papageorgiou A, Kallergis E, et al. Anticoagulation for atrial fibrillation in heart failure patients: balancing between Scylla and Charybdis. Journal of Geriatric Cardiology. 2021; 18: 352–361.
[7]
Fox KAA, Metra M, Morais J, Atar D. The myth of ‘stable’ coronary artery disease. Nature Reviews Cardiology. 2020; 17: 9–21.
[8]
Tsigkas G, Apostolos A, Trigka A, Chlorogiannis D, Katsanos K, Toutouzas K, et al. Very short versus longer dual antiplatelet treatment after coronary interventions: A systematic review and meta-analysis. American Journal of Cardiovascular Drugs. 2022. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40256-022-00559-0 (Accessed: 20 September 2020).
[9]
Lim J. Spectrum of left main stenosis. Circulation. 1978; 58: 758.
[10]
Kogame N, Ono M, Kawashima H, Tomaniak M, Hara H, Leipsic J, et al. The Impact of Coronary Physiology on Contemporary Clinical Decision Making. JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions. 2020; 13: 1617–1638.
[11]
Giannoglou GD, Antoniadis AP, Chatzizisis YS, Damvopoulou E, Parcharidis GE, Louridas GE. Prevalence of narrowing >or=50% of the left main coronary artery among 17,300 patients having coronary angiography. The American Journal of Cardiology. 2006; 98: 1202–1205.
[12]
El-Menyar AA, Al Suwaidi J, Holmes DR. Left main coronary artery stenosis: state-of-the-art. Current Problems in Cardiology. 2007; 32: 103–193.
[13]
Bing R, Yong ASC, Lowe HC. Percutaneous Transcatheter Assessment of the Left Main Coronary Artery: Current Status and Future Directions. JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions. 2015; 8: 1529–1539.
[14]
Knuuti J, Wijns W, Saraste A, Capodanno D, Barbato E, Funck-Brentano C, et al. 2019 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of chronic coronary syndromes. European Heart Journal. 2020; 41: 407–477.
[15]
Park DY, An S, Jolly N, Attanasio S, Yadav N, Rao S, et al. Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis Comparing Bifurcation Techniques for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention. Journal of the American Heart Association. 2022; 11: e025394.
[16]
Holm NR, Mäkikallio T, Lindsay MM, Spence MS, Erglis A, Menown IBA, et al. Percutaneous coronary angioplasty versus coronary artery bypass grafting in the treatment of unprotected left main stenosis: updated 5-year outcomes from the randomised, non-inferiority NOBLE trial. Lancet. 2020; 395: 191–199.
[17]
Medrano-Gracia P, Ormiston J, Webster M, Beier S, Young A, Ellis C, et al. A computational atlas of normal coronary artery anatomy. EuroIntervention. 2016; 12: 845–854.
[18]
Bergelson BA, Tommaso CL. Left main coronary artery disease: assessment, diagnosis, and therapy. American Heart Journal. 1995; 129: 350–359.
[19]
Dodge JT, Brown BG, Bolson EL, Dodge HT. Lumen diameter of normal human coronary arteries. Influence of age, sex, anatomic variation, and left ventricular hypertrophy or dilation. Circulation. 1992; 86: 232–246.
[20]
Dicicco BS, McManus BM, Waller BF, Roberts WC. Separate aortic ostium of the left anterior descending and left circumflex coronary arteries from the left aortic sinus of Valsalva (absent left main coronary artery). American Heart Journal. 1982; 104: 153–154.
[21]
Yamanaka O, Hobbs RE. Coronary artery anomalies in 126,595 patients undergoing coronary arteriography. Catheterization and Cardiovascular Diagnosis. 1990; 21: 28–40.
[22]
Mercado N, Moe T, Pieper M, House J, Dolla W, Seifert L, et al. Tissue characterisation of atherosclerotic plaque in the left main: an in vivo intravascular ultrasound radiofrequency data analysis. EuroIntervention. 2011; 7: 347–352.
[23]
Wykrzykowska JJ, Mintz GS, Garcia-Garcia HM, Maehara A, Fahy M, Xu K, et al. Longitudinal Distribution of Plaque Burden and Necrotic Core–Rich Plaques in Nonculprit Lesions of Patients Presenting With Acute Coronary Syndromes. JACC: Cardiovascular Imaging. 2012; 5: S10–S18.
[24]
Chatzizisis YS, Coskun AU, Jonas M, Edelman ER, Feldman CL, Stone PH. Role of endothelial shear stress in the natural history of coronary atherosclerosis and vascular remodeling: molecular, cellular, and vascular behavior. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2007; 49: 2379–2393.
[25]
Slager CJ, Wentzel JJ, Gijsen FJH, Schuurbiers JCH, van der Wal AC, van der Steen AFW, et al. The role of shear stress in the generation of rupture-prone vulnerable plaques. Nature Clinical Practice. Cardiovascular Medicine. 2005; 2: 401–407.
[26]
Apostolakis E, Tsigkas G, Baikoussis NG, Koniari I, Alexopoulos D. Acute left main coronary artery thrombosis due to cocaine use. Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery. 2010; 5: 65.
[27]
Ragosta M, Dee S, Sarembock IJ, Lipson LC, Gimple LW, Powers ER. Prevalence of unfavorable angiographic characteristics for percutaneous intervention in patients with unprotected left main coronary artery disease. Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions. 2006; 68: 357–362.
[28]
Oviedo C, Maehara A, Mintz GS, Araki H, Choi S, Tsujita K, et al. Intravascular ultrasound classification of plaque distribution in left main coronary artery bifurcations: where is the plaque really located? Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions. 2010; 3: 105–112.
[29]
Maehara A, Mintz GS, Castagna MT, Pichard AD, Satler LF, Waksman R, et al. Intravascular ultrasound assessment of the stenoses location and morphology in the left main coronary artery in relation to anatomic left main length. The American Journal of Cardiology. 2001; 88: 1–4.
[30]
Valgimigli M, Malagutti P, Rodriguez-Granillo GA, Garcia-Garcia HM, Polad J, Tsuchida K, et al. Distal Left Main Coronary Disease Is a Major Predictor of Outcome in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Intervention in the Drug-Eluting Stent Era: An Integrated Clinical and Angiographic Analysis Based on the Rapamycin-Eluting Stent Evaluated At Rotterdam. JACC: Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2006; 47: 1530–1537.
[31]
Zhang J-J, Ye F, Xu K, Kan J, Tao L, Santoso T, et al. Multicentre, randomized comparison of two-stent and provisional stenting techniques in patients with complex coronary bifurcation lesions: the DEFINITION II trial. European Heart Journal. 2020; 41: 2523–2536.
[32]
Neumann F, Sousa-Uva M, Ahlsson A, Alfonso F, Banning AP, Benedetto U, et al. 2018 ESC/EACTS Guidelines on myocardial revascularization. European Heart Journal. 2019; 40: 87–165.
[33]
Toutouzas K, Benetos G, Karanasos A, Chatzizisis YS, Giannopoulos AA, Tousoulis D. Vulnerable plaque imaging: updates on new pathobiological mechanisms. European Heart Journal. 2015; 36: 3147–3154.
[34]
Tsigkas G, Papageorgiou A, Moulias A, Kalogeropoulos AP, Papageorgopoulou C, Apostolos A, et al. Distal or Traditional Transradial Access Site for Coronary Procedures: A Single-Center, Randomized Study. JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions. 2022; 15: 22–32.
[35]
Tsigkas G, Moulias A, Papageorgiou A, Ntouvas I, Grapsas N, Despotopoulos S, et al. Transradial access through the anatomical snuffbox: Results of a feasibility study. Hellenic Journal of Cardiology. 2021; 62: 201–205.
[36]
Lee J, Park D, Park S. Left Main Disease. Interventional Cardiology Clinics. 2022; 11: 359–371.
[37]
Serruys PW, Hara H, Garg S, Kawashima H, Nørgaard BL, Dweck MR, et al. Coronary Computed Tomographic Angiography for Complete Assessment of Coronary Artery Disease: JACC State-of-the-Art Review. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2021; 78: 713–736.
[38]
Meijboom WB, Meijs MFL, Schuijf JD, Cramer MJ, Mollet NR, van Mieghem CAG, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of 64-slice computed tomography coronary angiography: a prospective, multicenter, multivendor study. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2008; 52: 2135–2144.
[39]
Dharampal AS, Papadopoulou SL, Rossi A, Meijboom WB, Weustink A, Dijkshoorn M, et al. Diagnostic performance of computed tomography coronary angiography to detect and exclude left main and/or three-vessel coronary artery disease. European Radiology. 2013; 23: 2934–2943.
[40]
Mancini GBJ, Leipsic J, Budoff MJ, Hague CJ, Min JK, Stevens SR, et al. CT Angiography Followed by Invasive Angiography in Patients With Moderate or Severe Ischemia-Insights From the ISCHEMIA Trial. JACC: Cardiovascular Imaging. 2021; 14: 1384–1393.
[41]
Ishisone T, Satoh M, Okabayashi H, Nakamura M. Usefulness of multidetector CT angiography for anomalous origin of coronary artery. BMJ Case Reports. 2014; 2014: bcr2014205180.
[42]
Kodaira M, Tabei R, Kuno T, Numasawa Y. Catastrophic catheter-induced coronary artery vasospasm successfully rescued using intravascular ultrasound imaging guidance. BMJ Case Reports. 2017; 2017: bcr2017222607.
[43]
Tsigkas G, Apostolos A, Synetos A, Latsios G, Toutouzas K, Xenogiannis I, et al. Computed tomoGRaphy guidEd invasivE Coronary angiography in patiEnts with a previous coronary artery bypass graft surgery trial (GREECE trial): Rationale and design of a multicenter, randomized control trial. Hellenic Journal of Cardiology. 2021; 62: 470–472.
[44]
Van Mieghem CAG, Cademartiri F, Mollet NR, Malagutti P, Valgimigli M, Meijboom WB, et al. Multislice Spiral Computed Tomography for the Evaluation of Stent Patency After Left Main Coronary Artery Stenting. Circulation. 2006; 114: 645–653.
[45]
Roura G, Gomez-Lara J, Ferreiro JL, Gomez-Hospital JA, Romaguera R, Teruel LM, et al. Multislice CT for assessing in-stent dimensions after left main coronary artery stenting: a comparison with three dimensional intravascular ultrasound. Heart. 2013; 99: 1106–1112.
[46]
Das P, Meredith I. Role of intravascular ultrasound in unprotected left main percutaneous coronary intervention. Expert Review of Cardiovascular Therapy. 2007; 5: 81–89.
[47]
Yock PG, Fitzgerald PJ. Intravascular ultrasound: state of the art and future directions. The American Journal of Cardiology. 1998; 81: 27E–32E.
[48]
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.
[49]
Fassa A, Wagatsuma K, Higano ST, Mathew V, Barsness GW, Lennon RJ, et al. Intravascular ultrasound-guided treatment for angiographically indeterminate left main coronary artery disease: a long-term follow-up study. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2005; 45: 204–211.
[50]
de la Torre Hernandez JM, Hernández Hernandez F, Alfonso F, Rumoroso JR, Lopez-Palop R, Sadaba M, et al. Prospective application of pre-defined intravascular ultrasound criteria for assessment of intermediate left main coronary artery lesions results from the multicenter LITRO study. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2011; 58: 351–358.
[51]
Kang S-J, Ahn J-M, Song H, Kim W-J, Lee J-Y, Park D-W, 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.
[52]
Jasti V, Ivan E, Yalamanchili V, Wongpraparut N, Leesar MA. Correlations between fractional flow reserve and intravascular ultrasound in patients with an ambiguous left main coronary artery stenosis. Circulation. 2004; 110: 2831–2836.
[53]
Park SJ, Ahn JM, Kang SJ, Yoon SH, Koo BK, Lee JY, et al. Intravascular ultrasound-derived minimal lumen area criteria for functionally significant left main coronary artery stenosis. JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions. 2014; 7: 868–874.
[54]
Stone GW, Sabik JF, Serruys PW, Simonton CA, Généreux P, Puskas J, et al. Everolimus-Eluting Stents or Bypass Surgery for Left Main Coronary Artery Disease. The New England Journal of Medicine. 2016; 375: 2223–2235.
[55]
Johnson TW, Räber L, di Mario C, Bourantas C, Jia H, Mattesini A, et al. Clinical use of intracoronary imaging. Part 2: acute coronary syndromes, ambiguous coronary angiography findings, and guiding interventional decision-making: an expert consensus document of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Intervent. European Heart Journal. 2019; 40: 2566–2584.
[56]
Sato K, Naganuma T, Costopoulos C, Takebayashi H, Goto K, Miyazaki T, et al. Calcification analysis by intravascular ultrasound to define a predictor of left circumflex narrowing after cross-over stenting for unprotected left main bifurcation lesions. Cardiovascular Revascularization Medicine. 2014; 15: 80–85.
[57]
Ielasi A, Kawamoto H, Latib A, Boccuzzi GG, Sardella G, Garbo R, et al. In-Hospital and 1-Year Outcomes of Rotational Atherectomy and Stent Implantation in Patients With Severely Calcified Unprotected Left Main Narrowings (from the Multicenter ROTATE Registry). American Journal of Cardiology. 2017; 119: 1331–1337.
[58]
Cosgrove CS, Wilson SJ, Bogle R, Hanratty CG, Williams R, Walsh SJ, et al. Intravascular lithotripsy for lesion preparation in patients with calcific distal left main disease. EuroIntervention. 2020; 16: 76–79.
[59]
Rola P, Kulczycki JJ, Włodarczak A, Barycki M, Włodarczak S, Szudrowicz M, et al. Intravascular Lithotripsy as a Novel Treatment Method for Calcified Unprotected Left Main Diseases-Comparison to Rotational Atherectomy-Short-Term Outcomes. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022; 19: 9011.
[60]
Rola P, Włodarczak A, Kulczycki JJ, Barycki M, Furtan Ł, Pęcherzewski M, et al. Efficacy and safety of shockwave intravascular lithotripsy (S-IVL) in calcified unprotected left main percutaneous coronary intervention - short-term outcomes. Postepy W Kardiologii Interwencyjnej. 2021; 17: 344–348.
[61]
Lee MS, Shlofmitz E, Park KW, Goldberg A, Jeremias A, Shlofmitz R. Orbital Atherectomy of Severely Calcified Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery Disease: One-Year Outcomes. The Journal of Invasive Cardiology. 2018; 30: 270–274.
[62]
Case BC, Yerasi C, Forrestal BJ, Shlofmitz E, Garcia-Garcia HM, Mintz GS, et al. Intravascular ultrasound guidance in the evaluation and treatment of left main coronary artery disease. International Journal of Cardiology. 2021; 325: 168–175.
[63]
Maehara A, Mintz GS, Witzenbichler B, Weisz G, Neumann F, Rinaldi MJ, et al. Relationship Between Intravascular Ultrasound Guidance and Clinical Outcomes After Drug-Eluting Stents. Circulation. Cardiovascular Interventions. 2018; 11: e006243.
[64]
Nerlekar N, Cheshire CJ, Verma KP, Ihdayhid A, McCormick LM, Cameron JD, et al. Intravascular ultrasound guidance improves clinical outcomes during implantation of both first- and second-generation drug-eluting stents: a meta-analysis. EuroIntervention. 2017; 12: 1632–1642.
[65]
Saleem S, Ullah W, Mukhtar M, Sarvepalli D, Younas S, Arab SA, et al. Angiographic-only or intravascular ultrasound-guided approach for left-main coronary artery intervention: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Expert Review of Cardiovascular Therapy. 2021; 19: 1029–1035.
[66]
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.
[67]
Wang Y, Mintz GS, Gu Z, Qi Y, Wang Y, Liu M, et al. Meta-analysis and systematic review of intravascular ultrasound versus angiography-guided drug eluting stent implantation in left main coronary disease in 4592 patients. BMC Cardiovascular Disorders. 2018; 18: 115.
[68]
Elgendy IY, Gad M, Jain A, Mahmoud AN, Mintz GS. Outcomes With Intravascular Ultrasound-Guided Drug Eluting Stent Implantation for Unprotected Left Main Coronary Lesions: A Meta-analysis. The American Journal of Cardiology. 2019; 124: 1652–1653.
[69]
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.
[70]
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.
[71]
Gao X, Kan J, Zhang Y, Zhang J, Tian N, 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 and Adherence. 2014; 8: 1299–1309.
[72]
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.
[73]
Kim YH, Her A, Rha S, Choi BG, Shim M, Choi SY, et al. Three-Year Major Clinical Outcomes of Angiography-Guided Single Stenting Technique in Non-Complex Left Main Coronary Artery Diseases. International Heart Journal. 2017; 58: 704–713.
[74]
Andell P, Karlsson S, Mohammad MA, Götberg M, James S, Jensen J, et al. Intravascular Ultrasound Guidance Is Associated With Better Outcome in Patients Undergoing Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery Stenting Compared With Angiography Guidance Alone. Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions. 2017; 10: e004813.
[75]
Tian J, Guan C, Wang W, Zhang K, Chen J, Wu Y, et al. Intravascular Ultrasound Guidance Improves the Long-term Prognosis in Patients with Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery Disease Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention. Scientific Reports. 2017; 7: 2377.
[76]
Liu XM, Yang ZM, Liu XK, Zhang Q, Liu CQ, Han QL, et al. Intravascular ultrasound-guided drug-eluting stent implantation for patients with unprotected left main coronary artery lesions: A single-center randomized trial. Anatolian Journal of Cardiology. 2019; 21: 83–90.
[77]
Choi KH, Song YB, Lee JM, Lee SY, Park TK, Yang JH, et al. Impact of Intravascular Ultrasound-Guided Percutaneous Coronary Intervention on Long-Term Clinical Outcomes in Patients Undergoing Complex Procedures. JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions. 2019; 12: 607–620.
[78]
Kinnaird T, Johnson T, Anderson R, Gallagher S, Sirker A, Ludman P, et al. Intravascular Imaging and 12-Month Mortality After Unprotected Left Main Stem PCI: An Analysis From the British Cardiovascular Intervention Society Database. JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions. 2020; 13: 346–357.
[79]
de la Torre Hernandez JM, Garcia Camarero T, Baz Alonso JA, Gómez-Hospital JA, Veiga Fernandez G, Lee Hwang D, et al. Outcomes of predefined optimisation criteria for intravascular ultrasound guidance of left main stenting. EuroIntervention. 2020; 16: 210–217.
[80]
Pappelis K, Jansonius NM. Quantification and Repeatability of Vessel Density and Flux as Assessed by Optical Coherence Tomography Angiography. Translational Vision Science & Technology. 2019; 8: 3.
[81]
de Donato G, Pasqui E, Alba G, Giannace G, Panzano C, Cappelli A, et al. Clinical considerations and recommendations for OCT-guided carotid artery stenting. Expert Review of Cardiovascular Therapy. 2020; 18: 219–229.
[82]
Pappelis K, Jansonius NM. U-Shaped Effect of Blood Pressure on Structural OCT Metrics and Retinal Perfusion in Ophthalmologically Healthy Subjects. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science. 2021; 62: 5.
[83]
Huang D, Swanson EA, Lin CP, Schuman JS, Stinson WG, Chang W, et al. Optical coherence tomography. Science. 1991; 254: 1178–1181.
[84]
Tenekecioglu E, Albuquerque FN, Sotomi Y, Zeng Y, Suwannasom P, Tateishi H, et al. Intracoronary optical coherence tomography: Clinical and research applications and intravascular imaging software overview. Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions. 2017; 89: 679–689.
[85]
Kawasaki M, Bouma BE, Bressner J, Houser SL, Nadkarni SK, MacNeill BD, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of optical coherence tomography and integrated backscatter intravascular ultrasound images for tissue characterization of human coronary plaques. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2006; 48: 81–88.
[86]
Araki M, Park S, Dauerman HL, Uemura S, Kim J, Di Mario C, et al. Optical coherence tomography in coronary atherosclerosis assessment and intervention. Nature Reviews Cardiology. 2022; 19: 684–703.
[87]
Toutouzas K, Karanasos A, Tousoulis D. Optical Coherence Tomography For the Detection of the Vulnerable Plaque. European Cardiology. 2016; 11: 90–95.
[88]
Iannaccone M, Quadri G, Taha S, D’Ascenzo F, Montefusco A, Omede’ P, et al. Prevalence and predictors of culprit plaque rupture at OCT in patients with coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis. European Heart Journal: Cardiovascular Imaging. 2016; 17: 1128–1137.
[89]
Cortese B, Burzotta F, Alfonso F, Pellegrini D, Trani C, Aurigemma C, et al. Role of optical coherence tomography for distal left main stem angioplasty. Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions. 2020; 96: 755–761.
[90]
Roule V, Rebouh I, Lemaitre A, Bignon M, Ardouin P, Sabatier R, et al. Evaluation of Left Main Coronary Artery Using Optical Frequency Domain Imaging and Its Pitfalls. Journal of Interventional Cardiology. 2020; 2020: 4817239.
[91]
Burzotta F, Dato I, Trani C, Pirozzolo G, De Maria GL, Porto I, et al. Frequency domain optical coherence tomography to assess non-ostial left main coronary artery. EuroIntervention. 2015; 10: e1–8.
[92]
Bouki KP, Vlad DI, Goulas N, Lambadiari VA, Dimitriadis GD, Kotsakis AA, et al. Diagnostic Performance of Frequency-Domain Optical Coherence Tomography to Predict Functionally Significant Left Main Coronary Artery Stenosis. Journal of Interventional Cardiology. 2021; 2021: 7108284.
[93]
Amabile N, Rangé G, Souteyrand G, Godin M, Boussaada MM, Meneveau N, et al. Optical coherence tomography to guide percutaneous coronary intervention of the left main coronary artery: the LEMON study. EuroIntervention. 2021; 17: e124–e131.
[94]
Bourantas CV, Zhang Y, Garg S, Iqbal J, Valgimigli M, Windecker S, et al. Prognostic implications of coronary calcification in patients with obstructive coronary artery disease treated by percutaneous coronary intervention: a patient-level pooled analysis of 7 contemporary stent trials. Heart. 2014; 100: 1158–1164.
[95]
Généreux P, Madhavan MV, Mintz GS, Maehara A, Palmerini T, Lasalle L, et al. Ischemic outcomes after coronary intervention of calcified vessels in acute coronary syndromes. Pooled analysis from the HORIZONS-AMI (Harmonizing Outcomes With Revascularization and Stents in Acute Myocardial Infarction) and ACUITY (Acute Catheterization and Urgent Intervention Triage Strategy) TRIALS. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2014; 63: 1845–1854.
[96]
Hendry C, Fraser D, Eichhofer J, Mamas MA, Fath-Ordoubadi F, El-Omar M, et al. Coronary perforation in the drug-eluting stent era: incidence, risk factors, management and outcome: the UK experience. EuroIntervention. 2012; 8: 79–86.
[97]
Fujino A, Mintz GS, Matsumura M, Lee T, Kim S, Hoshino M, et al. A new optical coherence tomography-based calcium scoring system to predict stent underexpansion. EuroIntervention. 2018; 13: e2182–e2189.
[98]
Maehara A, Matsumura M, Ali ZA, Mintz GS, Stone GW. IVUS-Guided Versus OCT-Guided Coronary Stent Implantation: A Critical Appraisal. JACC: Cardiovascular Imaging. 2017; 10: 1487–1503.
[99]
Karimi Galougahi K, Zalewski A, Leon MB, Karmpaliotis D, Ali ZA. Optical coherence tomography-guided percutaneous coronary intervention in pre-terminal chronic kidney disease with no radio-contrast administration. European Heart Journal. 2016; 37: 1059.
[100]
Burzotta F, Lassen JF, Banning AP, Lefèvre T, Hildick-Smith D, Chieffo A, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention in left main coronary artery disease: the 13th consensus document from the European Bifurcation Club. EuroIntervention. 2018; 14: 112–120.
[101]
Fujino Y, Bezerra HG, Attizzani GF, Wang W, Yamamoto H, Chamié D, et al. Frequency-domain optical coherence tomography assessment of unprotected left main coronary artery disease-a comparison with intravascular ultrasound. Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions. 2013; 82: E173–E183.
[102]
Miura K, Tada T, Shimada T, Ohya M, Murai R, Kubo S, et al. Three-dimensional optical coherence tomography versus intravascular ultrasound in percutaneous coronary intervention for the left main coronary artery. Heart and Vessels. 2021; 36: 630–637.
[103]
Cortese B, de la Torre Hernandez JM, Lanocha M, Ielasi A, Giannini F, Campo G, et al. Optical coherence tomography, intravascular ultrasound or angiography guidance for distal left main coronary stenting. The ROCK cohort II study. Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions. 2022; 99: 664–673.
[104]
Kuku KO, Singh M, Ozaki Y, Dan K, Chezar-Azerrad C, Waksman R, et al. Near-Infrared Spectroscopy Intravascular Ultrasound Imaging: State of the Art. Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine. 2020; 7: 107.
[105]
Terada K, Kubo T, Kameyama T, Matsuo Y, Ino Y, Emori H, et al. NIRS-IVUS for Differentiating Coronary Plaque Rupture, Erosion, and Calcified Nodule in Acute Myocardial Infarction. JACC: Cardiovascular Imaging. 2021; 14: 1440–1450.
[106]
McInerney A, Escaned J, Gonzalo N. Online coregistration of intravascular ultrasound and optical coherence tomography. Minerva Cardiology and Angiology. 2021; 69: 641–654.
[107]
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.
[108]
Barbieri L, D’Errico A, Avallone C, Gentile D, Provenzale G, Guagliumi G, et al. Optical Coherence Tomography and Coronary Dissection: Precious Tool or Useless Surplus? Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine. 2022; 9: 822998.
[109]
Kim ESH. Spontaneous Coronary-Artery Dissection. The New England Journal of Medicine. 2020; 383: 2358–2370.
[110]
Groves EM, Seto AH, Kern MJ. Invasive Testing for Coronary Artery Disease: FFR, IVUS, OCT, NIRS. Heart Failure Clinics. 2016; 12: 83–95.
[111]
Tsigkas G, Bousoula E, Koufou E, Davlouros P, Hahalis G. Assessing Intermediate Lesions: Comparing “Apples and Oranges”: FFR or OCT. JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions. 2020; 13: 1133.
[112]
Neleman T, van Zandvoort LJC, Tovar Forero MN, Masdjedi K, Ligthart JMR, Witberg KT, et al. FFR-Guided PCI Optimization Directed by High-Definition IVUS Versus Standard of Care: The FFR REACT Trial. JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions. 2022; 15: 1595–1607.
[113]
Nair A, Margolis MP, Kuban BD, Vince DG. Automated coronary plaque characterisation with intravascular ultrasound backscatter: ex vivo validation. EuroIntervention. 2007; 3: 113–120.
[114]
Nair A, Kuban BD, Tuzcu EM, Schoenhagen P, Nissen SE, Vince DG. Coronary plaque classification with intravascular ultrasound radiofrequency data analysis. Circulation. 2002; 106: 2200–2206.
[115]
Toutouzas K, Chatzizisis YS, Riga M, Giannopoulos A, Antoniadis AP, Tu S, et al. Accurate and reproducible reconstruction of coronary arteries and endothelial shear stress calculation using 3D OCT: comparative study to 3D IVUS and 3D QCA. Atherosclerosis. 2015; 240: 510–519.
[116]
Chatzizisis YS, Toutouzas K, Giannopoulos AA, Riga M, Antoniadis AP, Fujinom Y, et al. Association of global and local low endothelial shear stress with high-risk plaque using intracoronary 3D optical coherence tomography: Introduction of ‘shear stress score’. European Heart Journal-Cardiovascular Imaging. 2017; 18: 888–897.
[117]
Seetharam K, Shrestha S, Sengupta PP. Cardiovascular Imaging and Intervention Through the Lens of Artificial Intelligence. Interventional Cardiology. 2021; 16: e31.
[118]
Min H, Ryu D, Kang S, Lee J, Yoo JH, Cho H, et al. Prediction of Coronary Stent Underexpansion by Pre-Procedural Intravascular Ultrasound-Based Deep Learning. JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions. 2021; 14: 1021–1029.

Publisher’s Note: IMR Press stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

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