BACKGROUND: Intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) permits quantitative assessment of the lumen diameter and area of coronary arteries. The experimental study was performed to evaluate the accuracy of diameter and area measurements. METHODS AND RESULTS: Lumen quantitation (lumen diameter D and cross-sectional area A) in lucite tubes (lumen diameter 2.5 to 5.7 mm, Plexiglas) was performed using a mechanical IVUS system (HP console, 3.5 F catheter, Boston Scientific, 30 MHz). The influence of fluid type (blood, water and saline solution), fluid temperature (20 degrees C/37 degrees C), catheter to catheter variation, gain setting and ultrasound frequency (12, 20 and 30 MHz) was determined. In blood at 20 degrees C there was a constant deviation of the measured diameter from the true luminal diameter of -0.29 +/- -0.04 mm (p < 0.06). In water and saline solution at 20 degrees C the mean deviation from true diameter was -0.21 +/- -0.06 mm (p < 0.06). At 37 degrees C, the deviation in blood was greater than at 20 degrees (-0.34 +/- -0.02 mm) which is > 10% in a 3 mm tube (p < 0.06). Three of the ten catheters tested in water at 20 degrees C underestimated true diameter by more than -0.3 mm. The deviation from true diameter (5 mm tube) with varying gain settings was -0.14 mm to -0.23 mm compared to -0.19 mm at standard settings (p > 0.288). At 12 MHz diameter measured was over-estimated. The error in absolute area estimation increased with increasing diameter tested in blood at 37 degrees C (-1.21 to -2.72 mm2), whereas the relative error ([Measured Area-True Area]/True Area x 100 [%]) was more striking at smaller diameters (up to -25% in the 2.5 mm tube). CONCLUSION: Luminal diameters and areas are underestimated by this particular IVUS system. When IVUS imaging and measurements are made during coronary interventions this error should be taken into account with regard to appropriate sizing of the device and the assessment of the postprocedure result. Because systematic errors might also occur in other IVUS system (not tested in this study), it is advisable to ensure that each system is validated prior to clinical use, especially when exact measurements are required.
BACKGROUND: Intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) permits quantitative assessment of the lumen diameter and area of coronary arteries. The experimental study was performed to evaluate the accuracy of diameter and area measurements. METHODS AND RESULTS: Lumen quantitation (lumen diameter D and cross-sectional area A) in lucite tubes (lumen diameter 2.5 to 5.7 mm, Plexiglas) was performed using a mechanical IVUS system (HP console, 3.5 F catheter, Boston Scientific, 30 MHz). The influence of fluid type (blood, water and saline solution), fluid temperature (20 degrees C/37 degrees C), catheter to catheter variation, gain setting and ultrasound frequency (12, 20 and 30 MHz) was determined. In blood at 20 degrees C there was a constant deviation of the measured diameter from the true luminal diameter of -0.29 +/- -0.04 mm (p < 0.06). In water and saline solution at 20 degrees C the mean deviation from true diameter was -0.21 +/- -0.06 mm (p < 0.06). At 37 degrees C, the deviation in blood was greater than at 20 degrees (-0.34 +/- -0.02 mm) which is > 10% in a 3 mm tube (p < 0.06). Three of the ten catheters tested in water at 20 degrees C underestimated true diameter by more than -0.3 mm. The deviation from true diameter (5 mm tube) with varying gain settings was -0.14 mm to -0.23 mm compared to -0.19 mm at standard settings (p > 0.288). At 12 MHz diameter measured was over-estimated. The error in absolute area estimation increased with increasing diameter tested in blood at 37 degrees C (-1.21 to -2.72 mm2), whereas the relative error ([Measured Area-True Area]/True Area x 100 [%]) was more striking at smaller diameters (up to -25% in the 2.5 mm tube). CONCLUSION: Luminal diameters and areas are underestimated by this particular IVUS system. When IVUS imaging and measurements are made during coronary interventions this error should be taken into account with regard to appropriate sizing of the device and the assessment of the postprocedure result. Because systematic errors might also occur in other IVUS system (not tested in this study), it is advisable to ensure that each system is validated prior to clinical use, especially when exact measurements are required.
Authors: A L Bartorelli; R F Neville; G Keren; B N Potkin; Y Almagor; R F Bonner; J M Gessert; M B Leon Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 1992-01 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: C Di Mario; S H The; S Madretsma; R J van Suylen; R A Wilson; N Bom; P W Serruys; E J Gussenhoven; J R Roelandt Journal: J Am Soc Echocardiogr Date: 1992 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 5.251
Authors: R A Nishimura; W D Edwards; C A Warnes; G S Reeder; D R Holmes; A J Tajik; P G Yock Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 1990-07 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: E J Gussenhoven; C E Essed; C T Lancée; F Mastik; P Frietman; F C van Egmond; J Reiber; H Bosch; H van Urk; J Roelandt Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 1989-10 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: B N Potkin; A L Bartorelli; J M Gessert; R F Neville; Y Almagor; W C Roberts; M B Leon Journal: Circulation Date: 1990-05 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: E J Gussenhoven; P A Frietman; S H The; R J van Suylen; F C van Egmond; C T Lancée; H van Urk; J R Roelandt; T Stijnen; N Bom Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 1991-12-15 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Gerhard Koning; Jouke Dijkstra; Clemens von Birgelen; Joan C Tuinenburg; Jean Brunette; Jean-Claude Tardif; Pranobe W Oemrawsingh; Christian Sieling; Sören Melsa; Johan H C Reiber Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2002-08 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Nico Bruining; Ronald Hamers; Tat-Jin Teo; Pim J de Feijter; Patrick W Serruys; Jos R T C Roelandt Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2004-04 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Marc Hartmann; Clemens von Birgelen; Gary S Mintz; Nadine Deppermann; Olaf Dirsch; Martin G Stoel; Gert K van Houwelingen; Hans W Louwerenburg; Patrick M J Verhorst; Raimund Erbel Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2006-04-29 Impact factor: 2.357