Advertisement

Intravascular Imaging

  • Daynene Vykoukal
  • Mark G. Davies
Conference paper

Abstract

Intravascular imaging is developing as the fourth modality for ­cardiovascular physicians and scientists. For diagnostic purposes, traditional ultrasound imaging has been augmented with cross-sectional imaging by CT and MR scans. Conventional angiography is a necessary and invasive tool to deliver interventions but lacks the ability to examine flow and the vessel wall. Intravascular imaging by intravascular ultrasound provides this dimensional shift during angiography and enhances diagnosis and therapeutics.

Keywords

Intravascular ultrasound Virtual histology OCT FFR 

References

  1. 1.
    Ramaswami G, Tegos T, Nicolaides AN, Dhanjil S, Griffin M, Al-Kutoubi A, Belcaro G, Lewis JB, Wilkins R, Davies MJ (1999) Ultrasonic plaque character and outcome after lower limb angioplasty. J Vasc Surg 29:110–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Marks NA, Ascher E, Hingorani AP, Shiferson A, Puggioni A (2008) Gray-scale median of the atherosclerotic plaque can predict success of lumen re-entry during subintimal femoral-popliteal angioplasty. J Vasc Surg 47:109–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Met R, Bipat S, Legemate DA, Reekers JA, Koelemay MJ (2009) Diagnostic performance of computed tomography angiography in peripheral arterial disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA 301:415–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Heijenbrok-Kal MH, Kock MC, Hunink MG (2007) Lower extremity arterial disease: ­multidetector CT angiography meta-analysis. Radiology 245:433–439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mell M, Tefera G, Thornton F, Siepman D, Turnipseed W (2007) Clinical utility of time-­resolved imaging of contrast kinetics (TRICKS) magnetic resonance angiography for infrageniculate arterial occlusive disease. J Vasc Surg 45:543–548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Huegli RW, Thalhammer C, Jacob AL, Jaeger K, Bilecen D (2008) Intra-arterial MR-angiography on an open-bore MR-scanner compared to digital-subtraction angiography of the infra-popliteal runoff in patients with peripheral arterial occlusive disease. Eur J Radiol 66:519–525CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Collins R, Cranny G, Burch J, Aguiar-Ibáñez R, Craig D, Wright K, Berry E, Gough M, Kleijnen J, Westwood M (2007) A systematic review of duplex ultrasound, magnetic resonance angiography and computed tomography angiography for the diagnosis and assessment of symptomatic, lower limb peripheral arterial disease. Health Technol Assess 11:iii–iv, xi–xiii, 1–184Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Zimmermann GG, Peter Erhart P, Schneider J, Schulthess GK, Schmidt M, Debatin JE (1997) Intravascular MR imaging of atherosclerotic plaque: ex vivo analysis of human femoral ­arteries with histologic correlation. Radiology 204:769–774Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kashyap VS, Pavkov ML, Bishop PD, Nassoiy SP, Eagleton MJ, Clair DG, Ouriel K (2008) Angiography underestimates peripheral atherosclerosis: lumenography revisited. J Endovasc Ther 15:117–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kawano T, Honye J, Takayama T, Yokoyama S, Chiku M, Ando H, Endo M, Ichikawa M, Ishii N, Watanabe Y, Watanabe I, Saito S (2008) Compositional analysis of angioscopic ­yellow plaques with intravascular ultrasound radiofrequency data. Int J Cardiol 125:74–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bishop PD, Feiten LE, Ouriel K, Nassoiy SP, Pavkov ML, Clair D, Kashyap VS (2008) Arterial calcification increases in distal arteries in patients with peripheral arterial disease. Ann Vasc Surg 22:799–805CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gussenhoven EJ, vanderLugt A, Pasterkamp G, vanderBerg FG, Sie LH, Vischjager M, The SH, Li W, Pieterman H, vanUrk H (1995) Intravascular ultrasound predictors of outcome after peripheral balloon angioplasty. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 10:279–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Vogt KC, Just S, Rasmussen JG, Schroeder TV (1997) Prediction of outcome after femoropopliteal balloon angioplasty by IVUS. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 13:563–568CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    van der Lugt A, Gussenhoven EJ, Pasterkamp G, Stijnen T, Reekers JA, van der Berg FG, Tielbeek AV, Seelen JL, Pieterman H (1998) Intravascular ultrasound predictor of restenosis after balloon angioplasty of the femoropopliteal artery. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 16:110–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Spijkerboer AM, Nass PC, deValois JC, vanderGraaf Y, Eikelboom BC, Mali WP (1996) Evaluation of femoropopliteal arteries with duplex ultrasound after angioplasty, Can we ­predict results at one year? Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 12:418–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    van Lankeren W, Gussenhoven EJ, Honkoop J, Stijnen T, van Overhagen H, Wittens CHA, Kranendonk SE, van Sambeek MRHM, van der Lugt A (1999) Plaque area increase and ­vascular remodeling contribute to lumen area change after PTA of the femoropopliteal artery: an intravascular ultrasound study. J Vasc Surg 29(3):430–441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Capek P, McLean GK, Berkowitz HD (1991) Femoropopliteal angioplasty. Factors influencing long-term success. Circulation 83:170–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hunink MG, Donaldson MC, Meyerovitz MF, Polak JF, Whittemore AD, Kandarpa K, Grassi CJ, Aruny J, Harrington DP, Mannick JA (1993) Risks and benefits of femoropopliteal ­percutaneous balloon angioplasty. J Vasc Surg 17:183–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Blair JM, Gewertz BL, Moosa H, Lu C-T, Zarins CK (1989) PTA versus surgery for limb threatening ischemia. J Vasc Surg 9:698–703Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Milford MA, Weaver FA, Lundell CJ et al (1988) Femoropopliteal PTA for limb salvage. J Vasc Surg 8:292–299Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Treiman GS, Ichikawa L, Treiman RL, Cohen JL, Cossman DV, Wagner WH, Levin PM, Foran RF (1994) Treatment of recurrent femoral or popliteal artery stenosis after percutaneous transluminal angioplasty. J Vasc Surg 20:577–587CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wilson SE, Wold GL, Cross AP (1989) Percutaneous transluminal angioplasty versus ­operation for peripheral atherosclerosis: report of a prospective randomized trial in a selected group of patients. J Vasc Surg 9:1–9Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Armstrong MW, Torrie EP, Galland RB (1992) Consequences of immediate failure of ­percutaneous transluminal angioplasty. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 74:265–268Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Galaria II, Surowiec SM, Rhodes JM, Illig KA, Shortell CK, Davies MG (2005) Implications of early failure of superficial femoral artery endoluminal interventions. Ann Vasc Surg 19(6):787–792CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Tatò F, Hoffmann U, Weber C, Reiser M, Rieger J (2006) Comparison of angiography. duplex sonography and intravascular ultrasound for the graduation of femoropopliteal stenoses before and after balloon angioplasty. Ultrasound Med Biol 32:1837–1843CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Yabushita H, Bouma BE, Houser SL, Aretz HT, Jang I-K, Schlendorf KH, Kauffman CR, Shishkov M, Kang D-H, Halpern EF, Tearney GJ (2002) Characterization of human atherosclerosis by optical coherence tomography. Circulation 106:1540–1545CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Jang I-K, Bouma BE, Kang D-H, Park S-J, Park S-W, Seung K-B, Choi K-B, Shishkov M, Schlendorf K, Pomerantsev E, Houser SL, Aretz HT, Tearney GJ (2002) Visualization of ­coronary atherosclerotic plaques in patients using optical coherence tomography: comparison with intravascular ultrasound. J Am Coll Cardiol 39:604–609CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Schaar JA, de Korte CL, Mastik F, van Damme LC, Krams R, Serruys PW, van der Steen AF (2005) Three-dimensional palpography of human coronary arteries. Ex vivo validation and in-patient evaluation. Herz 30:125–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Schaar JA, van der Steen AF, Mastik F, Baldewsing RA, Serruys PW (2006) Intravascular palpography for vulnerable plaque assessment. J Am Coll Cardiol 47:C86–C91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Tobis J, Azarbal B, Slavin L (2007) Assessment of intermediate severity coronary lesions in the catheterization laboratory. J Am Coll Cardiol 49:839–848CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Morishima T, Chikamori T, Hatano T, Tanaka N, Takazawa K, Yamashina A (2004) Correlation between myocardial uptake of technetium-99m-sestamibi and pressure-derived myocardial fractional flow reserve. J Cardiol 43:155–163Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Pijls NH, van Schaardenburgh P, Manoharan G, Boersma E, Bech JW (2007) van’t Veer M, Bär F, Hoorntje J, Koolen J, Wijns W, de Bruyne B. Percutaneous coronary intervention of functionally nonsignificant stenosis: 5-year follow-up of the DEFER Study. J Am Coll Cardiol 49:2105–2111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Samady H, McDaniel M, Veledar E, De Bruyne B, Pijls NH, Fearon WF, Vaccarino V (2009) Baseline fractional flow reserve and stent diameter predict optimal post-stent fractional flow reserve and major adverse cardiac events after bare-metal stent deployment. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2:357–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Tonino PA, De Bruyne B, Pijls NH, Siebert U, Ikeno F, Van’ t Veer M, Klauss V, Manoharan G, Engstrøm T, Oldroyd KG, Ver Lee PN, MacCarthy PA, Fearon WF, FAME Study Investigators (2009) Fractional flow reserve versus angiography for guiding percutaneous coronary intervention. N Engl J Med 360:213–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Den Heijer P, Foley DP, Hillege H (1994) The “Ermenonville” classification of observations at coronary angioscopy: evaluation of intra- and inter-observer agreement. Eur Heart J 15:815Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Thieme T, Wernecke KD, Meyer R (1996) Angioscopic evaluation of atherosclerotic plaques: validation by histomorphologic analysis and association with stable and unstable coronary syndromes. J Am Coll Cardiol 28:1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Den Heijer P, Dijk RB, Hillege HL (1994) Serial angioscopic and angiographic observations during the first hour after successful coronary angioplasty: a preamble to a multicenter trial addressing angioscopic markers of restenosis. Am Heart J 128:656–663CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Kanamasa K, Ishikawa K (2002) Haziness on coronary angiogram after percutaneous ­transluminal coronary angioplasty evaluated with angioscopy. Angiology 53:171–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Sakatani H, Degawa T, Nakamura M (1999) Intracoronary surface changes after Palmar–Schatz stent implantation: serial observations with coronary angioscopy. Am Heart J 138:962–967CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Ueda Y, Nanto S, Komamura K (1994) Neointimal coverage of stents in coronary arteries observed by angioscopy. J Am Coll Cardiol 23:341–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Sassower M, Abela GS, Kock MC (1993) Angioscopic evaluation of periprocedural and ­postprocedural abrupt closure after percutaneous coronary angioplasty. Am Heart J 126:444–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    White C, Ramee S, Collins T (1995) Coronary angioscopy of abrupt occlusion after ­angioplasty. J Am Coll Cardiol 25:1681–1684CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    van Ooijen PMA, de Jonge G, Oudkerk M (2007) Coronary fly-through or virtual angioscopy using dual-source MDCT data. Eur Radiol 17:2852–2859CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Voigt JU (2009) Ultrasound molecular imaging. Methods 48:92–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Ferrara KW, Borden MA, Zhang H (2009) Lipid-shelled vehicles: engineering for ultrasound molecular imaging and drug delivery. Acc Chem Res 42:881–892CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Villanueva FS (2008) Molecular imaging of cardiovascular disease using ultrasound. J Nucl Cardiol 15:576–586CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, Methodist DeBakey Heart and Vascular CenterThe Methodist HospitalHoustonUSA

Personalised recommendations