Cargando…
Intravascular Imaging versus Physiological Assessment versus Biomechanics—Which Is a Better Guide for Coronary Revascularization
Today, coronary artery disease (CAD) continues to be a prominent cause of death worldwide. A reliable assessment of coronary stenosis represents a prerequisite for the appropriate management of CAD. Nevertheless, there are still major challenges pertaining to some limitations of current imaging and...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
MDPI
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10297310/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37371012 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics13122117 |
_version_ | 1785063853577469952 |
---|---|
author | Starczyński, Miłosz Dudek, Stanisław Baruś, Piotr Niedzieska, Emilia Wawrzeńczyk, Mateusz Ochijewicz, Dorota Piasecki, Adam Gumiężna, Karolina Milewski, Krzysztof Grabowski, Marcin Kochman, Janusz Tomaniak, Mariusz |
author_facet | Starczyński, Miłosz Dudek, Stanisław Baruś, Piotr Niedzieska, Emilia Wawrzeńczyk, Mateusz Ochijewicz, Dorota Piasecki, Adam Gumiężna, Karolina Milewski, Krzysztof Grabowski, Marcin Kochman, Janusz Tomaniak, Mariusz |
author_sort | Starczyński, Miłosz |
collection | PubMed |
description | Today, coronary artery disease (CAD) continues to be a prominent cause of death worldwide. A reliable assessment of coronary stenosis represents a prerequisite for the appropriate management of CAD. Nevertheless, there are still major challenges pertaining to some limitations of current imaging and functional diagnostic modalities. The present review summarizes the current data on invasive functional and intracoronary imaging assessment using optical coherence tomography (OCT), and intravascular ultrasound (IVUS). Amongst the functional parameters—on top of fractional flow reserve (FFR) and instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR)—we point to novel angiography-based measures such as quantitative flow ratio (QFR), vessel fractional flow reserve (vFFR), angiography-derived fractional flow reserve (FFRangio), and computed tomography-derived flow fractional reserve (FFR-CT), as well as hybrid approaches focusing on optical flow ratio (OFR), computational fluid dynamics and attempts to quantify the forces exaggerated by blood on the coronary plaque and vessel wall. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10297310 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | MDPI |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-102973102023-06-28 Intravascular Imaging versus Physiological Assessment versus Biomechanics—Which Is a Better Guide for Coronary Revascularization Starczyński, Miłosz Dudek, Stanisław Baruś, Piotr Niedzieska, Emilia Wawrzeńczyk, Mateusz Ochijewicz, Dorota Piasecki, Adam Gumiężna, Karolina Milewski, Krzysztof Grabowski, Marcin Kochman, Janusz Tomaniak, Mariusz Diagnostics (Basel) Review Today, coronary artery disease (CAD) continues to be a prominent cause of death worldwide. A reliable assessment of coronary stenosis represents a prerequisite for the appropriate management of CAD. Nevertheless, there are still major challenges pertaining to some limitations of current imaging and functional diagnostic modalities. The present review summarizes the current data on invasive functional and intracoronary imaging assessment using optical coherence tomography (OCT), and intravascular ultrasound (IVUS). Amongst the functional parameters—on top of fractional flow reserve (FFR) and instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR)—we point to novel angiography-based measures such as quantitative flow ratio (QFR), vessel fractional flow reserve (vFFR), angiography-derived fractional flow reserve (FFRangio), and computed tomography-derived flow fractional reserve (FFR-CT), as well as hybrid approaches focusing on optical flow ratio (OFR), computational fluid dynamics and attempts to quantify the forces exaggerated by blood on the coronary plaque and vessel wall. MDPI 2023-06-19 /pmc/articles/PMC10297310/ /pubmed/37371012 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics13122117 Text en © 2023 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Review Starczyński, Miłosz Dudek, Stanisław Baruś, Piotr Niedzieska, Emilia Wawrzeńczyk, Mateusz Ochijewicz, Dorota Piasecki, Adam Gumiężna, Karolina Milewski, Krzysztof Grabowski, Marcin Kochman, Janusz Tomaniak, Mariusz Intravascular Imaging versus Physiological Assessment versus Biomechanics—Which Is a Better Guide for Coronary Revascularization |
title | Intravascular Imaging versus Physiological Assessment versus Biomechanics—Which Is a Better Guide for Coronary Revascularization |
title_full | Intravascular Imaging versus Physiological Assessment versus Biomechanics—Which Is a Better Guide for Coronary Revascularization |
title_fullStr | Intravascular Imaging versus Physiological Assessment versus Biomechanics—Which Is a Better Guide for Coronary Revascularization |
title_full_unstemmed | Intravascular Imaging versus Physiological Assessment versus Biomechanics—Which Is a Better Guide for Coronary Revascularization |
title_short | Intravascular Imaging versus Physiological Assessment versus Biomechanics—Which Is a Better Guide for Coronary Revascularization |
title_sort | intravascular imaging versus physiological assessment versus biomechanics—which is a better guide for coronary revascularization |
topic | Review |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10297310/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37371012 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics13122117 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT starczynskimiłosz intravascularimagingversusphysiologicalassessmentversusbiomechanicswhichisabetterguideforcoronaryrevascularization AT dudekstanisław intravascularimagingversusphysiologicalassessmentversusbiomechanicswhichisabetterguideforcoronaryrevascularization AT baruspiotr intravascularimagingversusphysiologicalassessmentversusbiomechanicswhichisabetterguideforcoronaryrevascularization AT niedzieskaemilia intravascularimagingversusphysiologicalassessmentversusbiomechanicswhichisabetterguideforcoronaryrevascularization AT wawrzenczykmateusz intravascularimagingversusphysiologicalassessmentversusbiomechanicswhichisabetterguideforcoronaryrevascularization AT ochijewiczdorota intravascularimagingversusphysiologicalassessmentversusbiomechanicswhichisabetterguideforcoronaryrevascularization AT piaseckiadam intravascularimagingversusphysiologicalassessmentversusbiomechanicswhichisabetterguideforcoronaryrevascularization AT gumieznakarolina intravascularimagingversusphysiologicalassessmentversusbiomechanicswhichisabetterguideforcoronaryrevascularization AT milewskikrzysztof intravascularimagingversusphysiologicalassessmentversusbiomechanicswhichisabetterguideforcoronaryrevascularization AT grabowskimarcin intravascularimagingversusphysiologicalassessmentversusbiomechanicswhichisabetterguideforcoronaryrevascularization AT kochmanjanusz intravascularimagingversusphysiologicalassessmentversusbiomechanicswhichisabetterguideforcoronaryrevascularization AT tomaniakmariusz intravascularimagingversusphysiologicalassessmentversusbiomechanicswhichisabetterguideforcoronaryrevascularization |