Edouard Gerbaud1, Giora Weisz2, Atsushi Tanaka1, Manabu Kashiwagi1, Takehisa Shimizu2, Lin Wang2, Christiano Souza2, Brett E Bouma1, Melissa J Suter1, Milen Shishkov1, Giovanni J Ughi1, Elkan F Halpern3, Mireille Rosenberg1, Sergio Waxman4, Jeffrey W Moses2, Gary S Mintz2, Akiko Maehara2, Guillermo J Tearney5. 1. Harvard Medical School and Wellman Center for Photomedicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, BHX604A, Boston, MA 02114, USA. 2. Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY, USA Cardiovascular Research Foundation, New York, NY, USA. 3. Institute for Technology Assessment, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. 4. Department of Cardiology, Lahey Clinic Medical Center, Burlington, MA, USA. 5. Harvard Medical School and Wellman Center for Photomedicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, BHX604A, Boston, MA 02114, USA Harvard-MIT Division of Health Sciences and Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA Department of Pathology, Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA gtearney@partners.org.
Abstract
AIMS: The aim of this study was to investigate the reproducibility of intravascular optical coherence tomography (IVOCT) assessments, including a comparison to intravascular ultrasound (IVUS). Intra-observer and inter-observer variabilities of IVOCT have been previously described, whereas inter-institute reliability in multiple laboratories has never been systematically studied. METHODS AND RESULTS: In 2 independent laboratories with intravascular imaging expertise, 100 randomized matched data sets of IVOCT and IVUS images were analysed by 4 independent observers according to published consensus document definitions. Intra-observer, inter-observer, and inter-institute variabilities of IVOCT qualitative and quantitative measurements vs. IVUS measurements were assessed. Minor inter- and intra-observer variability of both imaging techniques was observed for detailed qualitative and geometric analysis, except for inter-observer mixed plaque identification on IVUS (κ = 0.70) and for inter-observer fibrous cap thickness measurement reproducibility on IVOCT (ICC = 0.48). The magnitude of inter-institute measurement differences for IVOCT was statistically significantly less than that for IVUS concerning lumen cross-sectional area (CSA), maximum and minimum lumen diameters, stent CSA, and maximum and minimum stent diameters (P < 0.001, P < 0.001, P < 0.001, P = 0.02, P < 0.001, and P = 0.01, respectively). Minor inter-institute measurement variabilities using both techniques were also found for plaque identification. CONCLUSION: In the measurement of lumen CSA, maximum and minimum lumen diameters, stent CSA, and maximum and minimum stent diameters by analysts from two different laboratories, reproducibility of IVOCT was more consistent than that of IVUS. Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved.
AIMS: The aim of this study was to investigate the reproducibility of intravascular optical coherence tomography (IVOCT) assessments, including a comparison to intravascular ultrasound (IVUS). Intra-observer and inter-observer variabilities of IVOCT have been previously described, whereas inter-institute reliability in multiple laboratories has never been systematically studied. METHODS AND RESULTS: In 2 independent laboratories with intravascular imaging expertise, 100 randomized matched data sets of IVOCT and IVUS images were analysed by 4 independent observers according to published consensus document definitions. Intra-observer, inter-observer, and inter-institute variabilities of IVOCT qualitative and quantitative measurements vs. IVUS measurements were assessed. Minor inter- and intra-observer variability of both imaging techniques was observed for detailed qualitative and geometric analysis, except for inter-observer mixed plaque identification on IVUS (κ = 0.70) and for inter-observer fibrous cap thickness measurement reproducibility on IVOCT (ICC = 0.48). The magnitude of inter-institute measurement differences for IVOCT was statistically significantly less than that for IVUS concerning lumen cross-sectional area (CSA), maximum and minimum lumen diameters, stent CSA, and maximum and minimum stent diameters (P < 0.001, P < 0.001, P < 0.001, P = 0.02, P < 0.001, and P = 0.01, respectively). Minor inter-institute measurement variabilities using both techniques were also found for plaque identification. CONCLUSION: In the measurement of lumen CSA, maximum and minimum lumen diameters, stent CSA, and maximum and minimum stent diameters by analysts from two different laboratories, reproducibility of IVOCT was more consistent than that of IVUS. Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved.
Authors: G S Mintz; S E Nissen; W D Anderson; S R Bailey; R Erbel; P J Fitzgerald; F J Pinto; K Rosenfield; R J Siegel; E M Tuzcu; P G Yock Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2001-04 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Jennifer Huisman; Rasmus Egede; Adam Rdzanek; Dirk Böse; Raimund Erbel; Janusz Kochman; Lisette Okkels Jensen; Job van de Palen; Marc Hartmann; Gary S Mintz; Clemens von Birgelen Journal: EuroIntervention Date: 2010-04 Impact factor: 6.534
Authors: Nieves Gonzalo; Hector M Garcia-Garcia; Patrick W Serruys; Koen H Commissaris; Hiram Bezerra; Pierre Gobbens; Marco Costa; Evelyn Regar Journal: EuroIntervention Date: 2009-06 Impact factor: 6.534
Authors: Patrick C Magnus; John E Jayne; Hector M Garcia-Garcia; Michael Swart; Gerrit-Anne van Es; Jan Tijssen; Aaron V Kaplan Journal: Catheter Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2015-03-30 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Hiram G Bezerra; Marco A Costa; Giulio Guagliumi; Andrew M Rollins; Daniel I Simon Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2009-11 Impact factor: 11.195
Authors: Francesco Prati; Giulio Guagliumi; Gary S Mintz; Marco Costa; Evelyn Regar; Takashi Akasaka; Peter Barlis; Guillermo J Tearney; Ik-Kyung Jang; Elosia Arbustini; Hiram G Bezerra; Yukio Ozaki; Nico Bruining; Darius Dudek; Maria Radu; Andrejs Erglis; Pascale Motreff; Fernando Alfonso; Kostas Toutouzas; Nieves Gonzalo; Corrado Tamburino; Tom Adriaenssens; Fausto Pinto; Patrick W J Serruys; Carlo Di Mario Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2012-05-31 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Daisuke Nakamura; Guilherme F Attizzani; Setsu Nishino; Kentaro Tanaka; Mohamad Soud; Gabriel T Pereira; Milana Leygerman; Anas Fares; Audrey Schnell; Marco A Costa; Andrejs Erglis; Hiram G Bezerra Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2017-06-08 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Øystein Pettersen; Elżbieta Pociask; Krzysztof P Malinowski; Magdalena Slezak; Knut Hegbom; Rune Wiseth; Dag Ole Nordhaug Journal: Cardiol J Date: 2018-11-16 Impact factor: 2.737
Authors: Max L Olender; Lambros S Athanasiou; Lampros K Michalis; Dimitris I Fotiadis; Elazer R Edelman Journal: IEEE J Sel Top Signal Process Date: 2020-06-15 Impact factor: 6.856
Authors: Makoto Araki; Seung-Jung Park; Harold L Dauerman; Shiro Uemura; Jung-Sun Kim; Carlo Di Mario; Thomas W Johnson; Giulio Guagliumi; Adnan Kastrati; Michael Joner; Niels Ramsing Holm; Fernando Alfonso; William Wijns; Tom Adriaenssens; Holger Nef; Gilles Rioufol; Nicolas Amabile; Geraud Souteyrand; Nicolas Meneveau; Edouard Gerbaud; Maksymilian P Opolski; Nieves Gonzalo; Guillermo J Tearney; Brett Bouma; Aaron D Aguirre; Gary S Mintz; Gregg W Stone; Christos V Bourantas; Lorenz Räber; Sebastiano Gili; Kyoichi Mizuno; Shigeki Kimura; Toshiro Shinke; Myeong-Ki Hong; Yangsoo Jang; Jin Man Cho; Bryan P Yan; Italo Porto; Giampaolo Niccoli; Rocco A Montone; Vikas Thondapu; Michail I Papafaklis; Lampros K Michalis; Harmony Reynolds; Jacqueline Saw; Peter Libby; Giora Weisz; Mario Iannaccone; Tommaso Gori; Konstantinos Toutouzas; Taishi Yonetsu; Yoshiyasu Minami; Masamichi Takano; O Christopher Raffel; Osamu Kurihara; Tsunenari Soeda; Tomoyo Sugiyama; Hyung Oh Kim; Tetsumin Lee; Takumi Higuma; Akihiro Nakajima; Erika Yamamoto; Krzysztof L Bryniarski; Luca Di Vito; Rocco Vergallo; Francesco Fracassi; Michele Russo; Lena M Seegers; Iris McNulty; Sangjoon Park; Marc Feldman; Javier Escaned; Francesco Prati; Eloisa Arbustini; Fausto J Pinto; Ron Waksman; Hector M Garcia-Garcia; Akiko Maehara; Ziad Ali; Aloke V Finn; Renu Virmani; Annapoorna S Kini; Joost Daemen; Teruyoshi Kume; Kiyoshi Hibi; Atsushi Tanaka; Takashi Akasaka; Takashi Kubo; Satoshi Yasuda; Kevin Croce; Juan F Granada; Amir Lerman; Abhiram Prasad; Evelyn Regar; Yoshihiko Saito; Mullasari Ajit Sankardas; Vijayakumar Subban; Neil J Weissman; Yundai Chen; Bo Yu; Stephen J Nicholls; Peter Barlis; Nick E J West; Armin Arbab-Zadeh; Jong Chul Ye; Jouke Dijkstra; Hang Lee; Jagat Narula; Filippo Crea; Sunao Nakamura; Tsunekazu Kakuta; James Fujimoto; Valentin Fuster; Ik-Kyung Jang Journal: Nat Rev Cardiol Date: 2022-04-21 Impact factor: 49.421
Authors: Chinmay Khandkar; Mahesh V Madhavan; James C Weaver; David S Celermajer; Keyvan Karimi Galougahi Journal: Cells Date: 2021-04-10 Impact factor: 6.600