Literature DB >> 10051294

Comparison of quantitative coronary angiography, intravascular ultrasound, and coronary pressure measurement to assess optimum stent deployment.

C E Hanekamp1, J J Koolen, N H Pijls, H R Michels, H J Bonnier.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Although intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) is the present standard for the evaluation of optimum stent deployment, this technique is expensive and not routinely feasible in most catheterization laboratories. Coronary pressure-derived myocardial fractional flow reserve (FFRmyo) is an easy, cheap, and rapidly obtainable index that is specific for the conductance of the epicardial coronary artery. In this study, we investigated the usefulness of coronary pressure measurement to predict optimum and suboptimum stent deployment. METHODS AND
RESULTS: In 30 patients, a Wiktor-i stent was implanted at different inflation pressures, starting at 6 atm and increasing step by step to 8, 10, 12, and 14 atm, if necessary. After every step, stent deployment was evaluated by quantitative coronary angiography (QCA), IVUS, and coronary pressure measurement. If any of the 3 techniques did not yield an optimum result, the next inflation was performed, and all 3 investigational modalities were repeated until optimum stent deployment was present by all of them or until the treating physician decided to accept the result. Optimum deployment according to QCA was finally achieved in 24 patients, according to IVUS in 17 patients, and also according to coronary pressure measurement in 17 patients. During the step-up, a total of 81 paired IVUS and coronary pressure measurements were performed, of which 91% yielded concordant results (ie, either an optimum or a suboptimum expansion of the stent by both techniques, P<0.00001). On the contrary, QCA showed a low concordance rate with IVUS and FFRmyo (48% and 46%, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: In this study, using a coil stent, both IVUS and coronary pressure measurement were of similar value with respect to the assessment of optimum stent deployment. Therefore, coronary pressure measurement can be used as a cheap and rapid alternative to IVUS for that purpose.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10051294     DOI: 10.1161/01.cir.99.8.1015

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Circulation        ISSN: 0009-7322            Impact factor:   29.690


  12 in total

1.  Incidence of stent under-deployment as a cause of in-stent restenosis in long stents: take your lesson!

Authors:  William Wijns
Journal:  Int J Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2004-12       Impact factor: 2.357

2.  In-stent fractional flow reserve variations and related optical coherence tomography findings: the FFR-OCT co-registration study.

Authors:  Stylianos A Pyxaras; Tom Adriaenssens; Emanuele Barbato; Giovanni Jacopo Ughi; Luigi Di Serafino; Frederic De Vroey; Gabor Toth; Shengxian Tu; Johan H C Reiber; Jeroen J Bax; William Wijns
Journal:  Int J Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2017-10-27       Impact factor: 2.357

Review 3.  The Clinical Significance of Physiological Assessment of Residual Ischemia After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

Authors:  Chandra P Ojha; Ahmed Ibrahim; Timir K Paul; Venkatachalam Mulukutla; Harsha S Nagarajarao
Journal:  Curr Cardiol Rep       Date:  2020-02-08       Impact factor: 2.931

4.  Coronary pressure measurement based decision making for percutaneous coronary intervention.

Authors:  Kohichiro Iwasaki; Shozo Kusachi
Journal:  Curr Cardiol Rev       Date:  2009-11

Review 5.  Impact of impaired fractional flow reserve after coronary interventions on outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Mathias Wolfrum; Gregor Fahrni; Giovanni Luigi de Maria; Guido Knapp; Nick Curzen; Rajesh K Kharbanda; Georg M Fröhlich; Adrian P Banning
Journal:  BMC Cardiovasc Disord       Date:  2016-09-08       Impact factor: 2.298

6.  A randomized controlled trial of a physiology-guided percutaneous coronary intervention optimization strategy: Rationale and design of the TARGET FFR study.

Authors:  Damien Collison; John D McClure; Colin Berry; Keith G Oldroyd
Journal:  Clin Cardiol       Date:  2020-02-10       Impact factor: 2.882

Review 7.  Physiologic Assessment after Coronary Stent Implantation.

Authors:  Doyeon Hwang; Seokhun Yang; Jinlong Zhang; Bon Kwon Koo
Journal:  Korean Circ J       Date:  2021-03       Impact factor: 3.243

8.  Improvement in coronary haemodynamics after percutaneous coronary intervention: assessment using instantaneous wave-free ratio.

Authors:  Sukhjinder S Nijjer; Sayan Sen; Ricardo Petraco; Rajesh Sachdeva; Florim Cuculi; Javier Escaned; Christopher Broyd; Nicolas Foin; Nearchos Hadjiloizou; Rodney A Foale; Iqbal Malik; Ghada W Mikhail; Amarjit S Sethi; Mahmud Al-Bustami; Raffi R Kaprielian; Masood A Khan; Christopher S Baker; Michael F Bellamy; Alun D Hughes; Jamil Mayet; Rajesh K Kharbanda; Carlo Di Mario; Justin E Davies
Journal:  Heart       Date:  2013-09-18       Impact factor: 5.994

9.  Optical coherence tomography imaging during percutaneous coronary intervention impacts physician decision-making: ILUMIEN I study.

Authors:  William Wijns; Junya Shite; Michael R Jones; Stephen W L Lee; Matthew J Price; Franco Fabbiocchi; Emanuele Barbato; Takashi Akasaka; Hiram Bezerra; David Holmes
Journal:  Eur Heart J       Date:  2015-08-04       Impact factor: 29.983

10.  Differential Prognostic Implications of Pre- and Post-Stent Fractional Flow Reserve in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

Authors:  Jinlong Zhang; Doyeon Hwang; Seokhun Yang; Chee Hae Kim; Joo Myung Lee; Chang-Wook Nam; Eun-Seok Shin; Joon-Hyung Doh; Masahiro Hoshino; Rikuta Hamaya; Yoshihisa Kanaji; Tadashi Murai; Jun-Jie Zhang; Fei Ye; Xiaobo Li; Zhen Ge; Shao-Liang Chen; Tsunekazu Kakuta; Bon-Kwon Koo
Journal:  Korean Circ J       Date:  2021-09-24       Impact factor: 3.243

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.