| Literature DB >> 27437923 |
Ayla Hoogendoorn1, Muthukaruppan Gnanadesigan2, Guillaume Zahnd3, Nienke S van Ditzhuijzen4, Johan C H Schuurbiers2, Gijs van Soest2, Evelyn Regar4, Jolanda J Wentzel2.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between the plaque free wall (PFW) measured by optical coherence tomography (OCT) and the plaque burden (PB) measured by intravascular ultrasound (IVUS). We hypothesize that measurement of the PFW could help to estimate the PB, thereby overcoming the limited ability of OCT to visualize the external elastic membrane in the presence of plaque. This could enable selection of the optimal stent-landing zone by OCT, which is traditionally defined by IVUS as a region with a PB < 40 %. PB (IVUS) and PFW angle (OCT and IVUS) were measured in 18 matched IVUS and OCT pullbacks acquired in the same coronary artery. We determined the relationship between OCT measured PFW (PFWOCT) and IVUS PB (PBIVUS) by non-linear regression analysis. An ROC-curve analysis was used to determine the optimal cut-off value of PFW angle for the detection of PB < 40 %. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated. There is a significant correlation between PFWOCT and PBIVUS (r(2) = 0.59). The optimal cut-off value of the PFWOCT for the prediction of a PBIVUS < 40 % is ≥220° with a PPV of 78 % and an NPV of 84 %. This study shows that PFWOCT can be considered as a surrogate marker for PBIVUS, which is currently a common criterion to select an optimal stent-landing zone.Entities:
Keywords: Intravascular ultrasound; Optical coherence tomography; Plaque burden; Plaque free wall; Stent-landing zone
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27437923 PMCID: PMC5021720 DOI: 10.1007/s10554-016-0940-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging ISSN: 1569-5794 Impact factor: 2.357
Fig. 1Relationship between the plaque free wall (PFW) angle and plaque burden (PB). a The PFWIVUS shows a strong inverse, non-linear correlation with the PBIVUS with a crossover point PFWC = 182° PFW. Final parameters: a = −0.069; b = 63.59; d = −0.163; e = 80.74. b A similar relationship is seen for the PFWOCT angle with the PBIVUS with a crossover point PFWC = 186°. Final parameters: a = −0.032; b = 54.98; d = −0.169; e = 80.59. c Overlay of regression lines of (a) and (b). PFWOCT and PFWIVUS perform equally well in predicting PB in the region of PFW angle >186°. In the more diseased regions, the predictive value of the PFWOCT angle is reduced compared to PFWIVUS
Fig. 2Sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV values for different PFWOCT angle cut-off points to predict a PB < 40 %. The optimal cut-off point is set at 220° PFWOCT
Fig. 3Clinical application of PFWOCT angle detection. When a PFWOCT of ≥220° is detected, in 78 % of the cases this indicates the presence of a PB < 40 %, forming an optimal stent landing zone