Abstract
Over the last 10 years quantitative coronary angiography has clearly emerged as the gold standard coronary imaging modality. However, despite the objectivity and reproducibility of coronary luminal measurements provided by quantitative angiographic analysis systems, a number of important limitations have been identified through their application to interventional procedures [1]. In particular, complex coronary lesions (for example, thrombus containing or ulcerated lesions) or the modifications in luminal geometry caused by percutaneous interventions, may yield inaccurate and unreliable luminal measurements [1–6]. These pitfalls of quantitative coronary angiography have been highlighted in recent years through the emergent clinical application of intracoronary ultrasound and angioscopy. Intravascular ultrasound imaging itself continues to undergo rapid evolution and has been advanced by its proponents as having a superior capacity for demonstrating luminal morphology, especially after coronary interventions [7–9].
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Macini GBJ. Quantitative arteriographic methods in the interventional catheterisation laboratory: An update and perspective. J Am Coll Cardiol 1991; 17: 23B - 33B.
Katritsis D, Webb-Peploe MM. Angiographie quantification of the results of cornary angioplasty: Where do we stand? Cath Cardiovasc Diagn 1990; 21: 65–71.
Serruys PW, Reiber JH, Wijns W et al. Assessment of percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty by quantitative coronary angiography: diameter versus densitometric area measurements. Am J Cardiol 1984; 54: 482–488.
De Cesare NB, Williamson PR, Moore NB, DeBoe SF, Mancini GBJ. Establishing comprenhensive, quantitative criteria for detection of restenosis and remodelling after percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty. Am J Cardiol 1992; 69: 77–83.
Escaned J, Foley DP, Haase J et al. Quantitative angiography during coronary angioplasty using a single angiographic view: A comparison of automated edge detection and videodensitometric techniques. Am Heart J 1993 (in press).
Sanz ML, Mancini J, LeFree MT et al. Variability of quantitative digital subtraction coronary angiography before and after percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty. Am J Cardiol. 1987; 60: 55–60.
Waller BF, Pinkerton CA, Slack JD. Intravascular ultrasound: a historical study of vessels during life. Circulation 1992; 85: 1305–1310.
Nissen SE, Grines CL, Gurley JC et al. Application of a new phased array ultrasound imaging catheter in the assessment of vascular dimensions: in vivo comparison to cineangiography. Circulation 1990; 81: 660–666.
Liebson PR, Klein LW. Intravascular ultrasound in coronary atherosclerosis: A new approach to clinical assessment. Am Heart J 1992; 1643–1660.
Di Mario C, Madretsma S, Linker D et al. The angle of incidence of the ultrasonic beam: A critical factor for the image quality in intravascular ultrasonography. Am Heart J 1993; 125: 442–448.
Chae J, Brisken AF, Maurer G, Siegel RJ. Geometric accuracy of intravascular ultrasound imaging. J Am Soc Echocardiography 1992; 5: 577–587.
Davidson W, Sheik KH, Hamson JK et al. Intravascular ultrasonography versus digital substraction angiography: a human in vivo comparison of vessel siza and morphology. J Am Coll Cardiol 1990; 16: 633–636.
Nissen SE,Gurley JC, Grines CL et al. Intravascular ultrasound assessment of lumen size and wall morphology in normal subjects and patients with coronary artery disease. Circulation 1991; 84: 1087–1099.
Hodgson McJB, Reddy KG, Suneja R, Nair RN, Lesnefsky EJ, Sheehan HM. Intracoronary ultrasound imaging: Correlation of plaque morphology with angiography, clinical syndrome and procedural results in patients undergoing coronary angioplasty. J Am Coll Cardiol 1993; 21: 35–44.
Doriot PA, Suilen C, Guggenheim N, Dorsaz PA, Chappuis F, Rotishauser W. Morphometry versus densitometry–a comparison by use of casts of coronary arteries. Int J Cardiac Imag 1992; 8: 121–130.
Gronenschild E, Janssen J. A compact system for quantitative cardiovascular angiography analysis. Medinfo KC Lun et al. (editors). Amsterdam, New York: Elsevier Science Publishers, 1992: 795–800.
Reiber JHC, Serruys PW, Kooijman CJ et al. Assessment of short-, medium-and longterm variations in arterial dimensions from computer assisted quantification of coronary cineangiograms. Circulation 1985; 71: 280–288.
Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986; 307–310.
Thomas AC, Davies MJ, Dilly S, Dilly N, Franc F. Potential errors in the estimation of coronary arterial stenosis from clinical arteriography with reference to the shape of the coronary arterial lumen. Br Heart J 1986; 55: 129–139.
Falk E. Plaque rupture with severe pre-existing stenosis precipitating coronary thrombosis: characteristics of coronary atherosclerotic plaques underlying fatal occlusive thrombi. Br Heart J 1983; 50: 127–134.
Mizuno K, Miyamoto A, Satomura K et al. Angioscopic coronary macromorphology in patients with acute coronary disorders. Lancet, 1991; 337: 809–812.
Ramee SR, White CJ, Collins TJ, Mesa JE, Murgo JP. Percutaneous angioscopy during coronary angioplasty using a steerable microangioscope. J Am Coll Cardiol 1991; 17: 100105.
Waller BF: Pathology of coronary angioplasty and related topics. In: Topol EJ (editor) Textbook of Interventional Cardiology. Philadelphia. WB Saunders Company, 1990: 395451.
Katritsis D, Lythall DA, Cooper IC, Crowther A, Webb Peploe MM: Assessment of coronary angioplasty: Comparison of visual assessment, hand-held caliper measurement and automated digital quantification. Cathet Cardiovasc Diagn 1988; 15: 237–242.
Potkin BN, artorelli AL, Gessert JM et al. Coronary artery imaging with intravascular high-frequency ultrasound. Circulation 1990; 81: 1575–1585.
Hogdson JM, Graham SD, Savakus AD et al. Clinical percutaneous imaging of coronary anatomy using an over-the-wire ultrasound catheter system. Int J Card Imaging 1989; 4: 187–193.
Mallery JA, Tobis JM, Griffith J et al. Assessment of normal and atherosclerotic arterial wall thickness with an intravascular imaging catheter. Am Heart J 1990; 119: 1392–1400.
Tobis JM, Mallery J, Mahon D et al. Intravascular analysis of coronary arteries in vivo. Analysis of tissue characteristics with comparison to in-vitro histological specimens. Circulation 1991; 83: 913–926.
Ge J, Erbel R, Gorge G. et al. Intravascular ultrasound imaging of arterial wall structure. Echocardiography 1992; 9: 475–83.
Nishimura RA, Edwards WD, Warnes CA et al. Intravascular ultrasound imaging: in-vitro validation and pathologic correlation. J Am Coll Cardiol 1990; 16: 145–154.
Moriuchi M, Tobis JM, Gordon I et al. Functional significance of arterial stenosis predicted by angiography and intravascular ultrasound imaging catheter [abstract]. J Am Coll Cardiol 1990; 15: 106A.
Spears JR, Sandor T, Bairn DS, Paulin S. The minimum error in estimating coronary luminal cross-sectional area from cineangiographic diameter measurements. Cath Cardiovasc Diagn 1983; 9: 119–128.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1994 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Escaned, J. et al. (1994). Does coronary lumen morphology influence vessel cross-sectional area estimation? An in vitro comparison of intravascular ultrasound and quantitative coronary angiography. In: Serruys, P.W., Foley, D.P., De Feyter, P.J. (eds) Quantitative Coronary Angiography in Clinical Practice. Developments in Cardiovascular Medicine, vol 145. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-8358-9_37
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-8358-9_37
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-4295-8
Online ISBN: 978-94-015-8358-9
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive