Cargando…
Validation of hemodynamic stress calculation in coronary computed tomography angiography versus intravascular ultrasound
BACKGROUND: Development in computational fluid dynamics and 3D construction could facilitate the calculation of hemodynamic stresses in coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA). However, the agreement between CCTA derived stresses and intravascular ultrasound/intravascular coronary angiograph...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
AME Publishing Company
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10102788/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37064396 http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/qims-22-832 |
_version_ | 1785025762799124480 |
---|---|
author | Ding, Yipu Liu, Zinuan Wang, Xi Xin, Ran Shan, Dongkai He, Bai Jing, Jing Gao, Qi Yang, Junjie Chen, Yundai |
author_facet | Ding, Yipu Liu, Zinuan Wang, Xi Xin, Ran Shan, Dongkai He, Bai Jing, Jing Gao, Qi Yang, Junjie Chen, Yundai |
author_sort | Ding, Yipu |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Development in computational fluid dynamics and 3D construction could facilitate the calculation of hemodynamic stresses in coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA). However, the agreement between CCTA derived stresses and intravascular ultrasound/intravascular coronary angiography (IVUS/ICA)-derived stresses remains undetermined. Thus, the purpose of this study is to investigate if CCTA can serve as alternative to IVUS/ICA for hemodynamic evaluation. METHODS: In this retrospective study, 13 patients (14 arteries) with unstable angina who underwent both CCTA and IVUS/ICA at an interval of less than 7 days were consecutively included at the Chinese PLA General Hospital within the year of 2021. Slice-level minimal lumen area (MLA), percent area stenosis, velocity, pressure, Reynolds number, wall shear stress (WSS) and axial plaque stress (APS) were determined by both modalities. The agreement between CCTA and IVUS/ICA was assessed using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), Pearson’s correlation coefficient and Bland-Altman analysis. RESULTS: CCTA overestimated the degree of area stenosis (50.22%±16.15% vs. 36.41%±19.37%, P=0.004) with the MLA showing no significant difference (5.81±2.24 vs. 6.72±2.04 mm(2), P=0.126). No statistical difference was observed in WSS (6.57±6.26 vs. 5.98±5.55 Pa, P=0.420) and APS (16.03±1,159.45 vs. −1.27±890.39 Pa, P=0.691) between CCTA and IVUS. Good correlation was found in velocity (ICC: 0.796, 95% CI: 0.752–0.833), Reynolds number (ICC: 0.810, 95% CI: 0.768–0.844) and WSS (ICC: 0.769, 95% CI: 0.718–0.810), while the ICC of APS was (ICC: 0.341, 95% CI: 0.197–0.458), indicating a relatively poor correlation. CONCLUSIONS: CCTA can serve as a satisfactory alternative to the reference standard, IVUS/ICA in morphology simulation and hemodynamic stress calculation, especially in the calculation of WSS. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10102788 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | AME Publishing Company |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-101027882023-04-15 Validation of hemodynamic stress calculation in coronary computed tomography angiography versus intravascular ultrasound Ding, Yipu Liu, Zinuan Wang, Xi Xin, Ran Shan, Dongkai He, Bai Jing, Jing Gao, Qi Yang, Junjie Chen, Yundai Quant Imaging Med Surg Original Article BACKGROUND: Development in computational fluid dynamics and 3D construction could facilitate the calculation of hemodynamic stresses in coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA). However, the agreement between CCTA derived stresses and intravascular ultrasound/intravascular coronary angiography (IVUS/ICA)-derived stresses remains undetermined. Thus, the purpose of this study is to investigate if CCTA can serve as alternative to IVUS/ICA for hemodynamic evaluation. METHODS: In this retrospective study, 13 patients (14 arteries) with unstable angina who underwent both CCTA and IVUS/ICA at an interval of less than 7 days were consecutively included at the Chinese PLA General Hospital within the year of 2021. Slice-level minimal lumen area (MLA), percent area stenosis, velocity, pressure, Reynolds number, wall shear stress (WSS) and axial plaque stress (APS) were determined by both modalities. The agreement between CCTA and IVUS/ICA was assessed using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), Pearson’s correlation coefficient and Bland-Altman analysis. RESULTS: CCTA overestimated the degree of area stenosis (50.22%±16.15% vs. 36.41%±19.37%, P=0.004) with the MLA showing no significant difference (5.81±2.24 vs. 6.72±2.04 mm(2), P=0.126). No statistical difference was observed in WSS (6.57±6.26 vs. 5.98±5.55 Pa, P=0.420) and APS (16.03±1,159.45 vs. −1.27±890.39 Pa, P=0.691) between CCTA and IVUS. Good correlation was found in velocity (ICC: 0.796, 95% CI: 0.752–0.833), Reynolds number (ICC: 0.810, 95% CI: 0.768–0.844) and WSS (ICC: 0.769, 95% CI: 0.718–0.810), while the ICC of APS was (ICC: 0.341, 95% CI: 0.197–0.458), indicating a relatively poor correlation. CONCLUSIONS: CCTA can serve as a satisfactory alternative to the reference standard, IVUS/ICA in morphology simulation and hemodynamic stress calculation, especially in the calculation of WSS. AME Publishing Company 2023-02-09 2023-04-01 /pmc/articles/PMC10102788/ /pubmed/37064396 http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/qims-22-832 Text en 2023 Quantitative Imaging in Medicine and Surgery. All rights reserved. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/Open Access Statement: This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), which permits the non-commercial replication and distribution of the article with the strict proviso that no changes or edits are made and the original work is properly cited (including links to both the formal publication through the relevant DOI and the license). See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Original Article Ding, Yipu Liu, Zinuan Wang, Xi Xin, Ran Shan, Dongkai He, Bai Jing, Jing Gao, Qi Yang, Junjie Chen, Yundai Validation of hemodynamic stress calculation in coronary computed tomography angiography versus intravascular ultrasound |
title | Validation of hemodynamic stress calculation in coronary computed tomography angiography versus intravascular ultrasound |
title_full | Validation of hemodynamic stress calculation in coronary computed tomography angiography versus intravascular ultrasound |
title_fullStr | Validation of hemodynamic stress calculation in coronary computed tomography angiography versus intravascular ultrasound |
title_full_unstemmed | Validation of hemodynamic stress calculation in coronary computed tomography angiography versus intravascular ultrasound |
title_short | Validation of hemodynamic stress calculation in coronary computed tomography angiography versus intravascular ultrasound |
title_sort | validation of hemodynamic stress calculation in coronary computed tomography angiography versus intravascular ultrasound |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10102788/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37064396 http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/qims-22-832 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT dingyipu validationofhemodynamicstresscalculationincoronarycomputedtomographyangiographyversusintravascularultrasound AT liuzinuan validationofhemodynamicstresscalculationincoronarycomputedtomographyangiographyversusintravascularultrasound AT wangxi validationofhemodynamicstresscalculationincoronarycomputedtomographyangiographyversusintravascularultrasound AT xinran validationofhemodynamicstresscalculationincoronarycomputedtomographyangiographyversusintravascularultrasound AT shandongkai validationofhemodynamicstresscalculationincoronarycomputedtomographyangiographyversusintravascularultrasound AT hebai validationofhemodynamicstresscalculationincoronarycomputedtomographyangiographyversusintravascularultrasound AT jingjing validationofhemodynamicstresscalculationincoronarycomputedtomographyangiographyversusintravascularultrasound AT gaoqi validationofhemodynamicstresscalculationincoronarycomputedtomographyangiographyversusintravascularultrasound AT yangjunjie validationofhemodynamicstresscalculationincoronarycomputedtomographyangiographyversusintravascularultrasound AT chenyundai validationofhemodynamicstresscalculationincoronarycomputedtomographyangiographyversusintravascularultrasound |