Yoshiyasu Minami1, Zhao Wang, Aaron D Aguirre, Stephen Lee, Shiro Uemura, Tsunenari Soeda, Rocco Vergallo, Owen C Raffel, Peter Barlis, Tomonori Itoh, Hang Lee, James Fujimoto, Ik-Kyung Jang. 1. aCardiology Division bBiostatistics Center, Massachusetts General Hospital cCardiology Division, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston dResearch Laboratory of Electronics, Department of Electrical Engineering & Computer Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA eQueen Mary Hospital, Hong Kong University, Pok Fu Lam, Hong Kong fCardiology Division, Kawasaki Medical University, Okayama Prefecture gIwate Medical University, Morioka, Japan hPrince Charles Hospital, Queensland iThe University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia jDivision of Cardiology, Kyung Hee University, Seoul, South Korea.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Methods for intravascular assessment of the side-branch (SB) orifice after stenting are not readily available. The aim of this study was to assess the utility of an en-face projection processing for optical coherence tomography (OCT) images for SB evaluation. METHODS: Measurements of the SB orifice obtained using en-face OCT images were validated using a phantom model. Linear regression modeling was applied to estimated area measurements made on the en-face images. The SB orifice was then analyzed in 88 patients with bifurcation lesions treated with either Xience V (everolimus-eluting stent) or Resolute Integrity [zotarolimus-eluting stent (ZES)]. The SB orifice area (A) and the area obstructed by struts (B) were calculated, and the %open area was evaluated as (A-B)/A*100. RESULTS: Linear regression modeling demonstrated that the observed departures of the intercept and slope were not significantly different from 0 (-0.12 ± 0.22, P=0.59) and 1 (1.01 ± 0.06, R(2)=0.88, P=0.87), respectively. In cases without SB dilatation, the %open area was significantly larger in the everolimus-eluting stent group (n=25) than in the ZES group [n=32; 89.2% (83.7-91.3) vs. 84.3% (78.9-87.8), P=0.04]. A significant difference in %open area between cases with and those without SB dilatation was demonstrated in the ZES group [91.4% (86.1-94.0) vs. 84.3% (78.9-87.8), P=0.04]. CONCLUSION: The accuracy of SB orifice measurement on an en-face OCT image was validated using a phantom model. This novel approach enables quantitative evaluation of the differences in SB orifice area free from struts among different stent types and different treatment strategies in vivo.
OBJECTIVE: Methods for intravascular assessment of the side-branch (SB) orifice after stenting are not readily available. The aim of this study was to assess the utility of an en-face projection processing for optical coherence tomography (OCT) images for SB evaluation. METHODS: Measurements of the SB orifice obtained using en-face OCT images were validated using a phantom model. Linear regression modeling was applied to estimated area measurements made on the en-face images. The SB orifice was then analyzed in 88 patients with bifurcation lesions treated with either Xience V (everolimus-eluting stent) or Resolute Integrity [zotarolimus-eluting stent (ZES)]. The SB orifice area (A) and the area obstructed by struts (B) were calculated, and the %open area was evaluated as (A-B)/A*100. RESULTS: Linear regression modeling demonstrated that the observed departures of the intercept and slope were not significantly different from 0 (-0.12 ± 0.22, P=0.59) and 1 (1.01 ± 0.06, R(2)=0.88, P=0.87), respectively. In cases without SB dilatation, the %open area was significantly larger in the everolimus-eluting stent group (n=25) than in the ZES group [n=32; 89.2% (83.7-91.3) vs. 84.3% (78.9-87.8), P=0.04]. A significant difference in %open area between cases with and those without SB dilatation was demonstrated in the ZES group [91.4% (86.1-94.0) vs. 84.3% (78.9-87.8), P=0.04]. CONCLUSION: The accuracy of SB orifice measurement on an en-face OCT image was validated using a phantom model. This novel approach enables quantitative evaluation of the differences in SB orifice area free from struts among different stent types and different treatment strategies in vivo.
Authors: John A Ormiston; Mark W I Webster; Bruce Webber; James T Stewart; Peter N Ruygrok; Robert I Hatrick Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2008-08 Impact factor: 11.195
Authors: Francisco Javier Toledano Delgado; Manuel Pan Alvarez-Ossorio; José Suárez de Lezo Cruz-Conde; Francisco Mazuelos Bellido; Miguel Ángel Romero Moreno; Alfonso Medina Fernández-Aceytuno; Javier Suárez de Lezo Herrerosde Tejada; Soledad Ojeda Pineda; José María Segura Saint-Gerons; Djordje Pavlovic Journal: Catheter Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2013-10-31 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Michael Joner; Aloke V Finn; Andrew Farb; Erik K Mont; Frank D Kolodgie; Elena Ladich; Robert Kutys; Kristi Skorija; Herman K Gold; Renu Virmani Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2006-05-05 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Antonios Karanasos; Shengxian Tu; Nienke S van Ditzhuijzen; Jurgen M R Ligthart; Karen Witberg; Nicolas Van Mieghem; Robert-Jan van Geuns; Peter de Jaegere; Felix Zijlstra; Johan H C Reiber; Evelyn Regar Journal: Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2014-09-16 Impact factor: 6.875
Authors: Michael W Jenkins; George C Linderman; Hiram G Bezerra; Yusuke Fujino; Marco A Costa; David L Wilson; Andrew M Rollins Journal: IEEE Trans Med Imaging Date: 2015-02-24 Impact factor: 10.048
Authors: Vasim Farooq; Patrick W Serruys; Jung Ho Heo; Bill D Gogas; Takayuki Okamura; Josep Gomez-Lara; Salvatore Brugaletta; Hector M Garcìa-Garcìa; Robert Jan van Geuns Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2011-08 Impact factor: 11.195