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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Starczyński, Miłosz, Dudek, Stanisław, Baruś, Piotr, Niedzieska, Emilia, Wawrzeńczyk, Mateusz, Ochijewicz, Dorota, Piasecki, Adam, Gumiężna, Karolina, Milewski, Krzysztof, Grabowski, Marcin, Kochman, Janusz, Tomaniak, Mariusz
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