BACKGROUND: Optical coherence tomography (OCT) imaging is considered to be the only imaging modality with sufficient resolution to measure fibrous cap thickness (FCT) in vivo. However, reproducibility of the measurements in vivo has been unsatisfactory. OBJECTIVES: The authors aimed to investigate whether satisfactory reproducibility of FCT measurements by OCT in vivo can be achieved between independent observers. METHODS: One hundred seventy OCT pullbacks were analyzed by 2 independent observers with intravascular imaging expertise in accordance with current guidelines to assess the interobserver variability of FCT measurement by intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). The main sources of the variability were analyzed and incorporated in lesion assessment criteria. The same 170 OCT pullbacks were reanalyzed by the same observers using the developed criteria, and the interobserver reproducibility of the measurements was reassessed. On the basis of the developed criteria, a third independent observer interpreted all 170 OCT images. Assessment of the maximal lipid arc was also undertaken similarly before and after the development of interpretation criteria. RESULTS: The original ICC of the FC thickness was 0.56 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.38 to 0.69). The poor definition of necrotic core facing border of FC and the neointimal presence of macrophages and calcification contributed to the high interobserver variability of FCT measurement. The ICC of FCT measurements by OCT in vivo was 0.88 (95% CI: 0.80 to 0.93) after we developed lesion assessment criteria. The ICC for the maximal lipid arc assessment before and after was 0.76 and 0.82 respectively. The third independent observer was extensively coached and returned the ICC of 0.82 (95% CI: 0.74 to 0.87) with observer 1 and 0.90 (95% CI: 0.86 to 0.94) with observer 2. CONCLUSIONS: Careful consideration of OCT features mimicking fibroatheroma lesions and imaging artifacts contributed to significantly higher levels of interobserver agreement. Interobserver variation can be partially resolved by development of standard interpretation algorithms.
BACKGROUND: Optical coherence tomography (OCT) imaging is considered to be the only imaging modality with sufficient resolution to measure fibrous cap thickness (FCT) in vivo. However, reproducibility of the measurements in vivo has been unsatisfactory. OBJECTIVES: The authors aimed to investigate whether satisfactory reproducibility of FCT measurements by OCT in vivo can be achieved between independent observers. METHODS: One hundred seventy OCT pullbacks were analyzed by 2 independent observers with intravascular imaging expertise in accordance with current guidelines to assess the interobserver variability of FCT measurement by intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). The main sources of the variability were analyzed and incorporated in lesion assessment criteria. The same 170 OCT pullbacks were reanalyzed by the same observers using the developed criteria, and the interobserver reproducibility of the measurements was reassessed. On the basis of the developed criteria, a third independent observer interpreted all 170 OCT images. Assessment of the maximal lipid arc was also undertaken similarly before and after the development of interpretation criteria. RESULTS: The original ICC of the FC thickness was 0.56 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.38 to 0.69). The poor definition of necrotic core facing border of FC and the neointimal presence of macrophages and calcification contributed to the high interobserver variability of FCT measurement. The ICC of FCT measurements by OCT in vivo was 0.88 (95% CI: 0.80 to 0.93) after we developed lesion assessment criteria. The ICC for the maximal lipid arc assessment before and after was 0.76 and 0.82 respectively. The third independent observer was extensively coached and returned the ICC of 0.82 (95% CI: 0.74 to 0.87) with observer 1 and 0.90 (95% CI: 0.86 to 0.94) with observer 2. CONCLUSIONS: Careful consideration of OCT features mimicking fibroatheroma lesions and imaging artifacts contributed to significantly higher levels of interobserver agreement. Interobserver variation can be partially resolved by development of standard interpretation algorithms.
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: Tomoyo Sugiyama; Erika Yamamoto; Krzysztof Bryniarski; Lei Xing; Hang Lee; Mitsuaki Isobe; Peter Libby; Ik-Kyung Jang Journal: JAMA Cardiol Date: 2018-03-01 Impact factor: 14.676
Authors: Mariusz Tomaniak; Dorota Ochijewicz; Łukasz Kołtowski; Adam Rdzanek; Arkadiusz Pietrasik; Jacek Jąkała; Magdalena Slezak; Krzysztof P Malinowski; Martyna Zaleska; Jakub Maksym; Piotr Barus; Tomasz Roleder; Krzysztof J Filipiak; Grzegorz Opolski; Janusz Kochman Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2021-05-28 Impact factor: 4.241
Authors: Jan-Quinten Mol; Anouar Belkacemi; Rick Hja Volleberg; Martijn Meuwissen; Alexey V Protopopov; Peep Laanmets; Oleg V Krestyaninov; Robert Dennert; Rohit M Oemrawsingh; Jan-Peter van Kuijk; Karin Arkenbout; Dirk J van der Heijden; Saman Rasoul; Erik Lipsic; Steven Teerenstra; Cyril Camaro; Peter Damman; Maarten Ah van Leeuwen; Robert-Jan van Geuns; Niels van Royen Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2021-07-07 Impact factor: 2.692