Cargando…
Quantitative precision of optical frequency domain imaging: direct comparison with frequency domain optical coherence tomography and intravascular ultrasound
No systematic validation study is available with optical frequency domain imaging (OFDI), directly compared with frequency domain optical coherence tomography (FD-OCT) and intravascular ultrasound (IVUS). Controversy also remains about the impact of different stent contour tracing methods by OFDI/FD...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer Japan
2015
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4826428/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26271203 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12928-015-0349-x |
_version_ | 1782426332572942336 |
---|---|
author | Kobayashi, Yuhei Kitahara, Hideki Tanaka, Shigemitsu Okada, Kozo Kimura, Takumi Ikeno, Fumiaki Yock, Paul G. Fitzgerald, Peter J. Honda, Yasuhiro |
author_facet | Kobayashi, Yuhei Kitahara, Hideki Tanaka, Shigemitsu Okada, Kozo Kimura, Takumi Ikeno, Fumiaki Yock, Paul G. Fitzgerald, Peter J. Honda, Yasuhiro |
author_sort | Kobayashi, Yuhei |
collection | PubMed |
description | No systematic validation study is available with optical frequency domain imaging (OFDI), directly compared with frequency domain optical coherence tomography (FD-OCT) and intravascular ultrasound (IVUS). Controversy also remains about the impact of different stent contour tracing methods by OFDI/FD-OCT. In vitro: coronary phantom models (1.51–5.04 mm) were imaged with OFDI, FD-OCT, and IVUS, demonstrating excellent quantitative precision with a slight overestimation of mean lumen diameter (difference 0.01–0.02 mm). In vivo: corresponding 64 OFDI/IVUS images of stented coronary segments from 20 swines were analyzed. Minimum lumen area by OFDI was larger than IVUS at baseline (P < 0.001), whereas it was smaller than IVUS at follow-up. When stent was traced at leading edges of struts by OFDI, minimum stent area was similar between OFDI and IVUS (P = 0.60). When traced at the highest intensity points of struts by OFDI, it was significantly larger in OFDI than in IVUS (P < 0.001). Three modalities have clinically acceptable precision across the wide range of lumen diameters. In vivo measurements by OFDI and IVUS could slightly be discrepant depending on the parameters and time points. In stent assessment by OFDI, the 2 methods led to a small but systematic difference; therefore, consistency in methodology is advised for comparative studies. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4826428 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2015 |
publisher | Springer Japan |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-48264282016-04-20 Quantitative precision of optical frequency domain imaging: direct comparison with frequency domain optical coherence tomography and intravascular ultrasound Kobayashi, Yuhei Kitahara, Hideki Tanaka, Shigemitsu Okada, Kozo Kimura, Takumi Ikeno, Fumiaki Yock, Paul G. Fitzgerald, Peter J. Honda, Yasuhiro Cardiovasc Interv Ther Original Article No systematic validation study is available with optical frequency domain imaging (OFDI), directly compared with frequency domain optical coherence tomography (FD-OCT) and intravascular ultrasound (IVUS). Controversy also remains about the impact of different stent contour tracing methods by OFDI/FD-OCT. In vitro: coronary phantom models (1.51–5.04 mm) were imaged with OFDI, FD-OCT, and IVUS, demonstrating excellent quantitative precision with a slight overestimation of mean lumen diameter (difference 0.01–0.02 mm). In vivo: corresponding 64 OFDI/IVUS images of stented coronary segments from 20 swines were analyzed. Minimum lumen area by OFDI was larger than IVUS at baseline (P < 0.001), whereas it was smaller than IVUS at follow-up. When stent was traced at leading edges of struts by OFDI, minimum stent area was similar between OFDI and IVUS (P = 0.60). When traced at the highest intensity points of struts by OFDI, it was significantly larger in OFDI than in IVUS (P < 0.001). Three modalities have clinically acceptable precision across the wide range of lumen diameters. In vivo measurements by OFDI and IVUS could slightly be discrepant depending on the parameters and time points. In stent assessment by OFDI, the 2 methods led to a small but systematic difference; therefore, consistency in methodology is advised for comparative studies. Springer Japan 2015-08-14 2016 /pmc/articles/PMC4826428/ /pubmed/26271203 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12928-015-0349-x Text en © Japanese Association of Cardiovascular Intervention and Therapeutics 2015 |
spellingShingle | Original Article Kobayashi, Yuhei Kitahara, Hideki Tanaka, Shigemitsu Okada, Kozo Kimura, Takumi Ikeno, Fumiaki Yock, Paul G. Fitzgerald, Peter J. Honda, Yasuhiro Quantitative precision of optical frequency domain imaging: direct comparison with frequency domain optical coherence tomography and intravascular ultrasound |
title | Quantitative precision of optical frequency domain imaging: direct comparison with frequency domain optical coherence tomography and intravascular ultrasound |
title_full | Quantitative precision of optical frequency domain imaging: direct comparison with frequency domain optical coherence tomography and intravascular ultrasound |
title_fullStr | Quantitative precision of optical frequency domain imaging: direct comparison with frequency domain optical coherence tomography and intravascular ultrasound |
title_full_unstemmed | Quantitative precision of optical frequency domain imaging: direct comparison with frequency domain optical coherence tomography and intravascular ultrasound |
title_short | Quantitative precision of optical frequency domain imaging: direct comparison with frequency domain optical coherence tomography and intravascular ultrasound |
title_sort | quantitative precision of optical frequency domain imaging: direct comparison with frequency domain optical coherence tomography and intravascular ultrasound |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4826428/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26271203 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12928-015-0349-x |
work_keys_str_mv | AT kobayashiyuhei quantitativeprecisionofopticalfrequencydomainimagingdirectcomparisonwithfrequencydomainopticalcoherencetomographyandintravascularultrasound AT kitaharahideki quantitativeprecisionofopticalfrequencydomainimagingdirectcomparisonwithfrequencydomainopticalcoherencetomographyandintravascularultrasound AT tanakashigemitsu quantitativeprecisionofopticalfrequencydomainimagingdirectcomparisonwithfrequencydomainopticalcoherencetomographyandintravascularultrasound AT okadakozo quantitativeprecisionofopticalfrequencydomainimagingdirectcomparisonwithfrequencydomainopticalcoherencetomographyandintravascularultrasound AT kimuratakumi quantitativeprecisionofopticalfrequencydomainimagingdirectcomparisonwithfrequencydomainopticalcoherencetomographyandintravascularultrasound AT ikenofumiaki quantitativeprecisionofopticalfrequencydomainimagingdirectcomparisonwithfrequencydomainopticalcoherencetomographyandintravascularultrasound AT yockpaulg quantitativeprecisionofopticalfrequencydomainimagingdirectcomparisonwithfrequencydomainopticalcoherencetomographyandintravascularultrasound AT fitzgeraldpeterj quantitativeprecisionofopticalfrequencydomainimagingdirectcomparisonwithfrequencydomainopticalcoherencetomographyandintravascularultrasound AT hondayasuhiro quantitativeprecisionofopticalfrequencydomainimagingdirectcomparisonwithfrequencydomainopticalcoherencetomographyandintravascularultrasound |