| Literature DB >> 20191323 |
Jennifer Huisman1, Marc Hartmann, Eline S K Mattern, Gary S Mintz, Mounir W Z Basalus, Gert K van Houwelingen, Patrick M J Verhorst, Clemens von Birgelen.
Abstract
Volumetric radiofrequency-based intravascular ultrasound (RF-IVUS) data of coronary segments are increasingly used as endpoints in serial trials of novel anti-atherosclerotic therapies. In a relatively time-consuming process, vessel and lumen contours are defined; these contours are first automatically detected, then visually checked, and finally (in most cases) manually edited to generate reliable volumetric data of vessel geometry and plaque composition. Reduction in number of cross-sectional images for volumetric analysis could save analysis time but may also increase measurement variability of volumetric data. To assess whether a 50% reduction in number of frames per segment (every second frame) alters the reproducibility of volumetric measurements, we performed repeated RF-IVUS analyses of 15 coronary segments with mild-to-moderate atherosclerosis (20.2 +/- 0.2 mm-long segments with 46 +/- 13% plaque burden). Volumes were calculated based on a total of 731 image frames. Reducing the number of cross-sectional image frames for volumetric measurements saved analysis time (38 +/- 9 vs. 68 +/- 17 min/segment; P < 0.0001) and resulted for only a few parameters in (borderline) significant but mild differences versus measurements based on all frames (fibrous volume, P < 0.05; necrotic-core volume, P = 0.07). Compared to the intra-observer variability, there was a mild increase in measurement variability for most geometrical and compositional volumetric RF-IVUS parameters. In RF-IVUS studies of mild-to-moderate coronary disease, analyzing less image frames saved analysis time, left most volumetric parameters greatly unaffected, and resulted in a no more than mild increase in measurement variability of volumetric data.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2010 PMID: 20191323 PMCID: PMC2868170 DOI: 10.1007/s10554-010-9599-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging ISSN: 1569-5794 Impact factor: 2.357
Fig. 1Different ways of RF-data analysis and generation of volumetric data
IVUS data of four different ways of RF-IVUS analysis
| Analysis I | Analysis II | Analysis III | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||
| Total vessel volume (mm3) | 344.6 ± 100.3 | 344.3 ± 100.7 | 345.8 ± 101.1 |
| Lumen volume (mm3) | 186.0 ± 72.4 | 186.9 ± 72.1 | 185.0 ± 73.0 |
| Plaque + media volume (mm3) | 158.6 ± 61.6 | 157.4 ± 62.4 | 160.8 ± 65.3 |
| Plaque burden (%) | 45.9 ± 12.9 | 45.5 ± 13.0 | 46.3 ± 13.6 |
|
| |||
| Fibrous volume (mm3) | 52.2 ± 32.5 | 51.9 ± 32.4 | 53.8 ± 34.5 |
| Fibro-Lipidic volume (mm3) | 12.7 ± 11.6 | 12.7 ± 11.7 | 13.3 ± 12.5 |
| Necrotic core volume (mm3) | 16.0 ± 13.5 | 15.9 ± 13.5 | 16.3 ± 13.7 |
| Calcium volume (mm3) | 8.3 ± 7.1 | 8.3 ± 7.1 | 8.3 ± 7.1 |
Measurement differences of RF-IVUS data derived from different ways of analysis
| Analysis I versusa | ||
|---|---|---|
| Analysis II | Analysis III | |
|
| ||
| ΔTotal vessel volume (mm3) | 0.35 ± 3.61 | −1.20 ± 5.16 |
|
|
| |
| ΔLumen volume (mm3) | −0.84 ± 3.87 | 1.01 ± 4.32 |
|
|
| |
| ΔPlaque + media volume (mm3) | 1.19 ± 3.55 | −2.20 ± 6.32 |
|
|
| |
| ΔPlaque burden (%) | 0.37 ± 1.00 | −0.37 ± 1.38 |
|
|
| |
|
| ||
| ΔFibrous volume (mm3) | 0.23 ± 2.09 | −1.60 ± 2.85 |
|
|
| |
| ΔFibro-lipidic volume (mm3) | −0.02 ± 0.73 | −0.60 ± 1.48 |
|
|
| |
| ΔNecrotic core volume (mm3) | 0.05 ± 0.54 | −0.36 ± 0.71 |
|
|
| |
| ΔCalcium volume (mm3) | −0.01 ± 0.28 | 0.06 ± 0.48 |
|
|
| |
aTwo-sided t-test
Fig. 2Bland–Altman comparison of different ways of RF-IVUS analysis for geometrical data
Fig. 3Bland–Altman comparison of different ways of RF-IVUS analysis for compositional data