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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kobayashi, Yuhei, Kitahara, Hideki, Tanaka, Shigemitsu, Okada, Kozo, Kimura, Takumi, Ikeno, Fumiaki, Yock, Paul G., Fitzgerald, Peter J., Honda, Yasuhiro
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