OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to assess in vivo the reproducibility of tissue characterization using spectral analysis of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) radiofrequency data (IVUS-VH). BACKGROUND: Despite the need for reproducibility data to design longitudinal studies, such information remains unexplored. METHODS AND RESULTS: IVUS-VH (Volcano Corp., Rancho Cordova, USA) was performed in patients referred for elective percutaneous intervention and in whom a non-intervened vessel was judged suitable for a safe IVUS interrogation. The IVUS catheters used were commercially available catheters (20 MHz, Volcano Corp., Rancho Cordova, USA). Following IVUS-VH acquisition, and after the disengagement and re-engagement of the guiding catheter, an additional acquisition was performed using a new IVUS catheter. Fifteen patients with 16 non-significant lesions were assessed by 2 independent observers. The relative inter-catheter differences regarding geometrical measurements were negligible for both observers. The inter-catheter relative difference in plaque cross-sectional area (CSA) was 3.2% for observer 1 and 0.5% for observer 2. The limits of agreement for (observer 1 measurements) lumen, vessel, plaque and plaque burden measurements were 0.82, -1.10 mm(2); 0.80, -0.66 mm(2); 1.08, -0.66 mm(2); and 5.83, -3.89%; respectively. Limits of agreement for calcium, fibrous, fibrolipidic and necrotic core CSA measurements were 0.22, -0.25 mm(2); 1.02, -0.71 mm(2); 0.61, -0.65 mm(2); and 0.43, -0.38 mm(2) respectively. Regarding the inter-observer agreement, the limits of agreement for lumen, vessel, plaque and plaque burden measurements were 2.61, -2.09 mm(2); 2.20-3.03 mm(2); 1.70, -3.04 mm(2); and 9.16, -16.41%; respectively, and for calcium, fibrous, fibrolipidic and necrotic core measurements of 0.08, -0.09 mm(2); 0.89, -1.28 mm(2); 0.74, -1.06 mm(2); and 0.16, -0.20 mm(2); respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The present study demonstrates that the geometrical and compositional output of IVUS-VH is acceptably reproducible.
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to assess in vivo the reproducibility of tissue characterization using spectral analysis of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) radiofrequency data (IVUS-VH). BACKGROUND: Despite the need for reproducibility data to design longitudinal studies, such information remains unexplored. METHODS AND RESULTS: IVUS-VH (Volcano Corp., Rancho Cordova, USA) was performed in patients referred for elective percutaneous intervention and in whom a non-intervened vessel was judged suitable for a safe IVUS interrogation. The IVUS catheters used were commercially available catheters (20 MHz, Volcano Corp., Rancho Cordova, USA). Following IVUS-VH acquisition, and after the disengagement and re-engagement of the guiding catheter, an additional acquisition was performed using a new IVUS catheter. Fifteen patients with 16 non-significant lesions were assessed by 2 independent observers. The relative inter-catheter differences regarding geometrical measurements were negligible for both observers. The inter-catheter relative difference in plaque cross-sectional area (CSA) was 3.2% for observer 1 and 0.5% for observer 2. The limits of agreement for (observer 1 measurements) lumen, vessel, plaque and plaque burden measurements were 0.82, -1.10 mm(2); 0.80, -0.66 mm(2); 1.08, -0.66 mm(2); and 5.83, -3.89%; respectively. Limits of agreement for calcium, fibrous, fibrolipidic and necrotic core CSA measurements were 0.22, -0.25 mm(2); 1.02, -0.71 mm(2); 0.61, -0.65 mm(2); and 0.43, -0.38 mm(2) respectively. Regarding the inter-observer agreement, the limits of agreement for lumen, vessel, plaque and plaque burden measurements were 2.61, -2.09 mm(2); 2.20-3.03 mm(2); 1.70, -3.04 mm(2); and 9.16, -16.41%; respectively, and for calcium, fibrous, fibrolipidic and necrotic core measurements of 0.08, -0.09 mm(2); 0.89, -1.28 mm(2); 0.74, -1.06 mm(2); and 0.16, -0.20 mm(2); respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The present study demonstrates that the geometrical and compositional output of IVUS-VH is acceptably reproducible.
Authors: P J Fitzgerald; A Oshima; M Hayase; J A Metz; S R Bailey; D S Baim; M W Cleman; E Deutsch; D J Diver; M B Leon; J W Moses; S N Oesterle; P A Overlie; C J Pepine; R D Safian; J Shani; C A Simonton; R W Smalling; P S Teirstein; J P Zidar; A C Yeung; R E Kuntz; P G Yock Journal: Circulation Date: 2000-08-01 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Anuja Nair; Barry D Kuban; E Murat Tuzcu; Paul Schoenhagen; Steven E Nissen; D Geoffrey Vince Journal: Circulation Date: 2002-10-22 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Gastón A Rodriguez-Granillo; Eugène P McFadden; Marco Valgimigli; Carlos A G van Mieghem; Evelyn Regar; Pim J de Feyter; Patrick W Serruys Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2006-05 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: L Wenguang; W J Gussenhoven; Y Zhong; S H The; C Di Mario; S Madretsma; F van Egmond; P de Feyter; H Pieterman; H van Urk Journal: Int J Card Imaging Date: 1991
Authors: M Schartl; W Bocksch; D H Koschyk; W Voelker; K R Karsch; J Kreuzer; D Hausmann; S Beckmann; M Gross Journal: Circulation Date: 2001-07-24 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: James C Fang; Scott Kinlay; John Beltrame; Hiroyuki Hikiti; Marco Wainstein; Dominik Behrendt; Jung Suh; Balz Frei; Gilbert H Mudge; Andrew P Selwyn; Peter Ganz Journal: Lancet Date: 2002-03-30 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Steven E Nissen; E Murat Tuzcu; Paul Schoenhagen; B Greg Brown; Peter Ganz; Robert A Vogel; Tim Crowe; Gail Howard; Christopher J Cooper; Bruce Brodie; Cindy L Grines; Anthony N DeMaria Journal: JAMA Date: 2004-03-03 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: R J Peters; W E Kok; M G Havenith; H Rijsterborgh; A C van der Wal; C A Visser Journal: J Am Soc Echocardiogr Date: 1994 May-Jun Impact factor: 5.251
Authors: A Tsurumi; S Miyachi; O Hososhima; T Izumi; T Ohshima; N Matsubara; T Kinkori; T Naito; T Wakabayashi Journal: Interv Neuroradiol Date: 2009-04-15 Impact factor: 1.610
Authors: Salvatore Brugaletta; Hector M Garcia-Garcia; Scot Garg; Josep Gomez-Lara; Roberto Diletti; Yoshinobu Onuma; Robert Jan van Geuns; Dougal McClean; Dariusz Dudek; Leif Thuesen; Bernard Chevalier; Stephan Windecker; Robert Whitbourn; Cecile Dorange; Karine Miquel-Hebert; Krishnankutty Sudhir; John A Ormiston; Patrick W Serruys Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2010-10-13 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Nieves Gonzalo; Héctor M García-García; Jurgen Ligthart; Gastón Rodriguez-Granillo; Emanuele Meliga; Yoshinobu Onuma; Johan C H Schuurbiers; Nico Bruining; Patrick W Serruys Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2008-06-12 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Stella-Lida Papadopoulou; Hector M Garcia-Garcia; Alexia Rossi; Chrysafios Girasis; Anoeshka S Dharampal; Pieter H Kitslaar; Gabriel P Krestin; Pim J de Feyter Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2012-12-07 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Gail M Siewiorek; Natasha A Loghmanpour; Brion M Winston; Mark H Wholey; Ender A Finol Journal: Med Eng Phys Date: 2011-10-06 Impact factor: 2.242
Authors: Jennifer Huisman; Marc Hartmann; Eline S K Mattern; Gary S Mintz; Mounir W Z Basalus; Gert K van Houwelingen; Patrick M J Verhorst; Clemens von Birgelen Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2010-02-27 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Marc Hartmann; Eline S K Mattern; Jennifer Huisman; Gert K van Houwelingen; Frits H A F de Man; Martin G Stoel; Peter W Danse; Hans W Louwerenburg; Clemens von Birgelen Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2008-08-13 Impact factor: 2.357