4.7 Article

Accuracy of in vivo coronary plaque morphology assessment - A validation study of in vivo virtual histology compared with in vitro histopathology

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY
卷 47, 期 12, 页码 2405-2412

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2006.02.044

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVES The goal of the present study was to compare the accuracy of in vivo tissue characterization obtained by intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) radiofrequency (RF) data analysis, known as Virtual Histology (VH), to the in vitro histopathology. of coronary atherosclerotic plaques obtained by directional coronary atherectomy. BACKGROUND Vulnerable plaque leading to acute coronary syndrome (ACS) has been associated with specific plaque composition, and its characterization is an important clinical focus. METHODS Virtual histology IVUS images were performed before and after a single debulking cut using directional coronary atherectomy. Debulking region of in vivo histology image was predicted by comparing pre- and post-debulking VH images. Analysis of VH images with the corresponding tissue cross section was performed. RESULTS Fifteen stable angina pectoris (AP) and 15 ACS patients were enrolled. The results of IVUS RF data analysis correlated well with histopathologic examination (predictive accuracy from all patients data: 87.1% for fibrous, 87.1% for fibro-fatty, 88.3% for necrotic core, and 96.5% for dense calcium regions, respectively). In addition, the frequency of necrotic core was significantly higher in the ACS group than in the stable AP group (in vitro histopathology: 22.6% vs. 12.6%, p = 0.02; in vivo virtual histology: 24.5% vs. 10.4%, p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS Correlation of in vivo IVUS RF data analysis with histopathology shows a high accuracy. In vivo IVUS RF data analysis is a useful modality for the classification of different types of coronary components, and may play an important role in the detection of vulnerable plaque.

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

4.7
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