Accuracy of coronary computed tomography angiography for bioresorbable scaffold luminal investigation: a comparison with optical coherence tomography

  • Carlos Collet
  • Yohei Sotomi
  • Rafael Cavalcante
  • Taku Asano
  • Yosuke Miyazaki
  • Erhan Tenekecioglu
  • Pieter Kistlaar
  • Yaping Zeng
  • Pannipa Suwanasson
  • Robbert J. de Winter
  • Koen Nieman
  • Patrick W. Serruys
  • Yoshinobu Onuma
Original Paper


To establish the accuracy of coronary computed tomography angiography (CTA) for in-scaffold quantitative evaluation with optical coherence tomography (OCT) as a reference. The translucent backbone of the bioresorbable scaffold allow us to evaluate non-invasively the coronary lumen with coronary CTA. In the ABSORB first-in-man studies, coronary CTA was shown to be feasible for quantitative luminal assessment. Nevertheless, a comparison with an intravascular modality with higher resolution has never been performed. In the ABSORB Cohort B trial, 101 patient with non-complex lesions were treated with the fully biodegradable vascular scaffold. For this analysis, all patients who underwent coronary CTA at 18 months and OCT within ±180 days were included. Coronary CTA and OCT data were analysed at an independent core laboratory for quantitative cross-sectional luminal dimensions. The primary objective was the accuracy and precision of coronary CTA for in-scaffold minimal lumen area assessment, with OCT as a reference. Among the 101 patients of the ABSORB Cohort B trial, 35 underwent both OCT and coronary CTA. The feasibility of quantitative evaluation was 74%. In the scaffolded segment, coronary CTA underestimated minimal lumen area by 9.8% (accuracy 0.39 mm2, precision 1.0 mm2, 95% limits of agreement −1.71 to 2.50 mm2). A similar level of agreement was observed in the non-scaffolded segment. Compared to OCT, coronary CTA appears to be accurate for the estimation of in-scaffold luminal areas, with no difference compared to the non-scaffolded region.


Coronary computed tomography angiography Polymeric scaffolds Optical coherence tomography 



Bioresobable vascular scaffold


Computed tomography angiography


Intravascular ultrasound


Fractional flow reserve derived from computed tomography


Optical coherence tomography


Percutaneous coronary interventions




Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Y. Onuma and P.W. Serruys are members of International Advisory Board of Abbott Vascular. Y. Sotomi is a consultant for GOODMAN and has received a grant from the Fukuda Memorial Foundation and SUNRISE laboratory. P.H. Kitslaar is an employee of Medis medical imaging systems and has a research appointment at the Leiden University Medical Center. All other authors declare no competing interests.


  1. 1.
    Serruys PW, Ormiston J, van Geuns RJ, de Bruyne B, Dudek D, Christiansen E et al (2016) A Polylactide bioresorbable scaffold eluting everolimus for treatment of coronary stenosis: 5-year follow-up. J Am Coll Cardiol 67(7):766–776CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Stone GW, Gao R, Kimura T, Kereiakes DJ, Ellis SG, Onuma Y et al (2016) 1-year outcomes with the Absorb bioresorbable scaffold in patients with coronary artery disease: a patient-level, pooled meta-analysis. The Lancet 387(10025):1277–1289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Serruys PW, Chevalier B, Dudek D, Cequier A, Carrie D, Iniguez A et al (2015) A bioresorbable everolimus-eluting scaffold versus a metallic everolimus-eluting stent for ischaemic heart disease caused by de-novo native coronary artery lesions (ABSORB II): an interim 1-year analysis of clinical and procedural secondary outcomes from a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 385(9962):43–54CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Onuma Y, Dudek D, Thuesen L, Webster M, Nieman K, Garcia-Garcia HM et al (2013) Five-year clinical and functional multislice computed tomography angiographic results after coronary implantation of the fully resorbable polymeric everolimus-eluting scaffold in patients with de novo coronary artery disease: the ABSORB cohort A trial. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 6(10):999–1009CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gutierrez-Chico JL, Serruys PW, Girasis C, Garg S, Onuma Y, Brugaletta S et al (2012) Quantitative multi-modality imaging analysis of a fully bioresorbable stent: a head-to-head comparison between QCA, IVUS and OCT. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 28(3):467–478CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Serruys PW, Onuma Y, Dudek D, Smits PC, Koolen J, Chevalier B et al (2011) Evaluation of the second generation of a bioresorbable everolimus-eluting vascular scaffold for the treatment of de novo coronary artery stenosis: 12-month clinical and imaging outcomes. J Am Coll Cardiol 58(15):1578–1588CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Nieman K, Serruys PW, Onuma Y, van Geuns RJ, Garcia-Garcia HM, de Bruyne B et al (2013) Multislice computed tomography angiography for noninvasive assessment of the 18-month performance of a novel radiolucent bioresorbable vascular scaffolding device: the ABSORB trial (a clinical evaluation of the bioabsorbable everolimus eluting coronary stent system in the treatment of patients with de novo native coronary artery lesions). J Am Coll Cardiol 62(19):1813–1814CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Zhang YJ, Iqbal J, Nakatani S, Bourantas CV, Campos CM, Ishibashi Y et al (2014) Scaffold and edge vascular response following implantation of everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold: a 3-year serial optical coherence tomography study. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 7(12):1361–1369CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Suwannasom P, Onuma Y, Campos CM, Nakatani S, Ishibashi Y, Tateishi H et al (2015) Fate of bioresorbable vascular scaffold metallic radio-opaque markers at the site of implantation after bioresorption. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 8(8):1130–1132CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Onuma Y, Serruys PW (2011) Bioresorbable scaffold: the advent of a new era in percutaneous coronary and peripheral revascularization? Circulation 123(7):779–797CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Leipsic J, Abbara S, Achenbach S, Cury R, Earls JP, Mancini GJ et al (2014) SCCT guidelines for the interpretation and reporting of coronary CT angiography: a report of the Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography Guidelines Committee. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr 8(5):342–358CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tearney GJ, Regar E, Akasaka T, Adriaenssens T, Barlis P, Bezerra HG et al (2012) Consensus standards for acquisition, measurement, and reporting of intravascular optical coherence tomography studies: a report from the International Working Group for intravascular optical coherence tomography standardization and validation. J Am Coll Cardiol 59(12):1058–1072CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bezerra HG, Attizzani GF, Sirbu V, Musumeci G, Lortkipanidze N, Fujino Y et al (2013) Optical coherence tomography versus intravascular ultrasound to evaluate coronary artery disease and percutaneous coronary intervention. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 6(3):228–236CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Altman DG, Bland JM (1986) Comparison of methods of measuring blood pressure. J Epidemiol Community Health 40(3):274–277CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Arbab-Zadeh A, Miller JM, Rochitte CE, Dewey M, Niinuma H, Gottlieb I et al (2012) Diagnostic accuracy of computed tomography coronary angiography according to pre-test probability of coronary artery disease and severity of coronary arterial calcification. The CORE-64 (coronary artery evaluation using 64-row multidetector computed tomography angiography) International Multicenter Study. J Am Coll Cardiol 59(4):379–387CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fischer C, Hulten E, Belur P, Smith R, Voros S, Villines TC (2013) Coronary CT angiography versus intravascular ultrasound for estimation of coronary stenosis and atherosclerotic plaque burden: a meta-analysis. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr 7(4):256–266CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rief M, Zimmermann E, Stenzel F, Martus P, Stangl K, Greupner J et al (2013) Computed tomography angiography and myocardial computed tomography perfusion in patients with coronary stents: prospective intraindividual comparison with conventional coronary angiography. J Am Coll Cardiol 62(16):1476–1485CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sankaran S, Kim HJ, Choi G, Taylor CA (2016) Uncertainty quantification in coronary blood flow simulations: impact of geometry, boundary conditions and blood viscosity. J Biomech 49(12):2540–2547CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hetterich H, Jaber A, Gehring M, Curta A, Bamberg F, Filipovic N et al (2015) Coronary computed tomography angiography based assessment of endothelial shear stress and its association with atherosclerotic plaque distribution in-vivo. PLoS One 10(1):e0115408CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Norgaard BL, Leipsic J, Gaur S, Seneviratne S, Ko BS, Ito H, et al (2014) Diagnostic performance of noninvasive fractional flow reserve derived from coronary computed tomography angiography in suspected coronary artery disease: the NXT trial (analysis of coronary blood flow using CT angiography: next steps). J Am Coll Cardiol 63(12):1145–1155CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bourantas CV, Papadopoulou SL, Serruys PW, Sakellarios A, Kitslaar PH, Bizopoulos P et al (2015) Noninvasive prediction of atherosclerotic progression: the PROSPECT-MSCT Study. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 9(8):1009–1011CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Toepker M, Schlett CL, Irlbeck T, Mahabadi AA, Bamberg F, Leidecker C et al (2010) Accuracy of dual-source computed tomography in quantitative assessment of low density coronary stenosis: a motion phantom study. Eur Radiol 20(3):542–548CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Carlos Collet
    • 1
  • Yohei Sotomi
    • 1
  • Rafael Cavalcante
    • 2
  • Taku Asano
    • 1
  • Yosuke Miyazaki
    • 2
  • Erhan Tenekecioglu
    • 2
  • Pieter Kistlaar
    • 3
    • 4
  • Yaping Zeng
    • 2
  • Pannipa Suwanasson
    • 5
  • Robbert J. de Winter
    • 1
  • Koen Nieman
    • 2
  • Patrick W. Serruys
    • 6
  • Yoshinobu Onuma
    • 2
    • 7
  1. 1.Cardiology DepartmentAcademic Medical CentreAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.ThoraxCenterErasmus University Medical CentreRotterdamThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Division of Image Processing, Department of RadiologyLeiden UniversityLeidenThe Netherlands
  4. 4.Medis medical imaging systems BVLeidenThe Netherlands
  5. 5.Northern Region Heart Center, Faculty of MedicineChiang Mai UniversityChiang MaiThailand
  6. 6.Imperial College of LondonLondonUK
  7. 7.Cardialysis BVRotterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations