4.3 Article

OCT-measured plaque free wall angle is indicative for plaque burden: overcoming the main limitation of OCT?

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CARDIOVASCULAR IMAGING
Volume 32, Issue 10, Pages 1477-1481

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10554-016-0940-y

Keywords

Optical coherence tomography; Intravascular ultrasound; Plaque free wall; Plaque burden; Stent-landing zone

Funding

  1. European Research Council [310457]
  2. European Research Council (ERC) [310457] Funding Source: European Research Council (ERC)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between the plaque free wall (PFW) measured by optical coherence tomography (OCT) and the plaque burden (PB) measured by intravascular ultrasound (IVUS). We hypothesize that measurement of the PFW could help to estimate the PB, thereby overcoming the limited ability of OCT to visualize the external elastic membrane in the presence of plaque. This could enable selection of the optimal stent-landing zone by OCT, which is traditionally defined by IVUS as a region with a PB < 40 %. PB (IVUS) and PFW angle (OCT and IVUS) were measured in 18 matched IVUS and OCT pullbacks acquired in the same coronary artery. We determined the relationship between OCT measured PFW (PFWOCT) and IVUS PB (PBIVUS) by non-linear regression analysis. An ROC-curve analysis was used to determine the optimal cut-off value of PFW angle for the detection of PB < 40 %. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated. There is a significant correlation between PFWOCT and PBIVUS (r(2) = 0.59). The optimal cut-off value of the PFWOCT for the prediction of a PBIVUS < 40 % is aeyen220A degrees with a PPV of 78 % and an NPV of 84 %. This study shows that PFWOCT can be considered as a surrogate marker for PBIVUS, which is currently a common criterion to select an optimal stent-landing zone.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available