4.5 Article

Between-centre reproducibility of volumetric intravascular ultrasound radiofrequency-based analyses in mild-to-moderate coronary atherosclerosis: an international multicentre study

Journal

EUROINTERVENTION
Volume 5, Issue 8, Pages 925-931

Publisher

EUROPA EDITION
DOI: 10.4244/EIJV5I8A156

Keywords

Coronary disease; intravascular ultrasound; ultrasonics; radio frequency; virtual histology; measurement reproducibility

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aims: To assess for the first time in a multicentre design the between-centre reproducibility of volumetric virtual histology intravascular ultrasound (VH-IVUS) measurements with a semi-automated, computer-assisted contour detection system in mild-to-moderately diseased coronary segments. Methods and results: Analysts of four European IVUS centres performed independent IVUS analyses (in total 7,188 cross-sectional analyses) and obtained volumetric data to evaluate the reproducibility of volumetric VH-IVUS measurements in 36 coronary segments (length 20.0 +/- 0.4 mm) from patients with stable angina. Geometric and compositional VH-IVUS measurements were highly correlated for the different comparisons. Overall intraclass correlation for vessel, lumen, plaque volume and plaque burden were 0.98, 0.92 0.95, and 0.86, respectively; for fibrous, fibro-lipidic, necrotic core and calcified volumes overall intraclass correlations were 0.95, 0.93, 0.99, and 1.00, respectively. There were significant but small differences for vessel, lumen, fibrous and calcified volumes, and there was no significant difference for plaque volume. Of the plaque components necrotic core and calcified volume showed on average the highest reproducibility. Conclusions: These findings underline the necessity to centrally analyse IVUS data obtained in multicentre studies addressing mild-to-moderately diseased coronary arteries. In addition, pooling VH-IVUS data from different studies, analysed at different centres, may be problematical.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available