Abstract

Recently, Fourier domain OCT (FD-OCT) has been introduced for clinical use. This approach allows in vivo, high resolution (15 micron) imaging with very fast data acquisition, however, it requires brief flushing of the lumen during imaging. The reproducibility of such fast data acquisition under intracoronary flush application is poorly understood. To assess the inter-study variability of FD-OCT and to compare lumen morphometry to the established invasive imaging method, IVUS. 18 consecutive patients with coronary artery disease scheduled for PCI were included. In each target vessel a FD-OCT pullback (MGH system, light source 1,310 nm, 105 fps, pullback speed 20 mm/s) was acquired during brief (3 s) injection of X-ray contrast (flow 3 ml/s) through the guiding catheter. A second pullback was repeated under the same conditions after re-introduction of the FD OCT catheter into the coronary artery. IVUS and OCT imaging was performed in random order. FD-OCT and IVUS pullback data were analyzed using a recently developed software employing semi automated lumen contour and stent strut detection algorithms. Corresponding ROI were matched based on anatomical landmarks such as side branches and/or stent edges. Inter-study variability is presented as the absolute difference between the two pullbacks. FD-OCT showed remarkably good reproducibility. Inter-study variability in native vessels (cohort A) was very low for mean and minimal luminal area (0.10 ± 0.38, 0.19 ± 0.57 mm2, respectively). Likewise inter-study variability was very low in stented coronary segments (cohort B) for mean lumen, mean stent, minimal luminal and minimal stent area (0.06 ± 0.08, 0.07 ± 0.10, 0.04 ± 0.09, 0.04 ± 0.10 mm2, respectively). Comparison to IVUS morphometry revealed no significant differences. The differences between both imaging methods, OCT and IVUS, were very low for mean lumen, mean stent, minimal luminal and minimal stent area (0.10 ± 0.45, 0.10 ± 0.36, 0.26 ± 0.54, 0.05 ± 0.47 mm2, respectively). FD-OCT shows excellent reproducibility and very low inter-study variability in both, native and stented coronary segments. No significant differences in quantitative lumen morphometry were observed between FD-OCT and IVUS. Evaluating these results suggest that FD-OCT is a reliable imaging tool to apply in longitudinal coronary artery disease studies.

Highlights

  • Optical coherence tomography (OCT) is a relatively new, but rapidly accepted invasive coronary imaging tool [1]

  • Evaluating these results suggest that Fourier domain OCT (FD-OCT) is a reliable imaging tool to apply in longitudinal coronary artery disease studies

  • The mean of lumen areas of all frames in the selected ROI The smallest lumen area in the selected ROI. In those cases which the longitudinal position of minimal luminal area (MLA) of first, test pullback or OCT was located in a different position in the second, retest pullback or intravascular ultrasound (IVUS)

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Optical coherence tomography (OCT) is a relatively new, but rapidly accepted invasive coronary imaging tool [1]. As. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging (2013) 29:39–51 it requires good spatial coherence of the near infrared light beam to create high resolution [2], cross sectional images of the coronary artery, it requires transient clearing of the coronary during image acquisition [3]. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging (2013) 29:39–51 it requires good spatial coherence of the near infrared light beam to create high resolution [2], cross sectional images of the coronary artery, it requires transient clearing of the coronary during image acquisition [3] This prerequisite hampered widespread use of the first generation timedomain OCT (TD-OCT) systems in the past, which required proximal balloon occlusion and simultaneous distal flush delivery during pull-back of the OCT imaging probe [4]. Excellent image quality and the high contrast between lumen and vessel wall have proven to provide highly accurate [6] morphometry in vivo, both in terms of accuracy when compared to histomorphometry as well as in terms of inter- and intra-observer variability [7,8,9,10,11]

Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call