4.3 Article

Utility of three-dimensional reconstruction of coronary angiography to guide percutaneous coronary intervention

期刊

出版社

WILEY-LISS
DOI: 10.1002/ccd.20955

关键词

three-dimensional angiography; quantitative coronary angiography; drug-eluting stents; coronary artery disease

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: The goal of this study was to determine whether three-dimensional (3D) reconstruction of traditional coronary angiography could optimize the choice of drug-eluting stent (DES) length and number during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Background: Coronary angiography is subject to significant foreshortening artifact that limits the ability of the operator to accurately determine lesion length. Methods: The angiographic images of the target vessels of consecutive PCI procedures were postprocessed using a 3D reconstruction algorithm. The appropriate length and optimal number of DES to span each target lesion were calculated and compared with the number and length of DES actually chosen by the operator. Results: A total of 42 target Vessels were analyzed, and 3D reconstruction was successful in 38/42 (90.5%) of cases. The results of 3D analysis would have changed operator decision making in six cases (16%): in four cases, the stent chosen by the operator was too short requiring an additional DES; in two cases, the chosen DES was too long and exchanged for a shorter one. In each of these six cases, 3D analysis would have determined the correct stent length prior to stent selection. The optimal stent number derived by 3D reconstruction was significantly less than the actual number of stents per lesion used by the operator (1.31 +/- 0.47 versus 1.54 +/- 0.68, P = 0.01), and the optimal stent length trended less than the actual stented length (27.5 +/- 12.8 mm versus 28.7 +/- 14.7 mm, P = 0.23). Conclusions: 3D reconstruction algorithm of standard coronary angiography is a promising technique to improve DES utilization during PCI. (c) 2006 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据