4.3 Article

Guidance of aortic ablation using optical coherence tomography

期刊

出版社

KLUWER ACADEMIC PUBL
DOI: 10.1023/A:1022877220226

关键词

ablation; IVUS; optical coherence tomography; plaque; rabbit; restenosis

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [R01-CA-94041-01, 9-R01-CA-75289-03] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NEI NIH HHS [9-R01-EY-11289-14] Funding Source: Medline
  3. NHLBI NIH HHS [1-R29-HL-55686-01A1, R01-HL-55686-07, R01-HL-63953] Funding Source: Medline
  4. NIAMS NIH HHS [R01-AR-44812-02, R01 AR-46996-01] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: There is a significant need for an imaging modality that is capable of providing guidance for intravascular procedures, as current technologies suffer from significant limitations. In particular, laser ablation of in-stent restenosis, revascularization of chronic total occlusions, and pulmonary vein ablation could benefit from guidance. Optical coherence tomography ( OCT), a recently introduced technology, is similar to ultrasound except that it measures the back-reflection of infrared light instead of sound. This study examines the ability of OCT to guide vascular laser ablation. Methods: Aorta samples underwent laser ablation using an argon laser at varying power outputs and were monitored with OCT collecting images at 4 frames. Samples were compared to the corresponding histopathology. Results: Arterial layers could be differentiated in the images sequences. This allowed correlation of changes in the OCT image with power and duration in addition to histopathology. Conclusions: OCT provides real-time guidance of arterial ablation. At 4 frames, OCT was successfully able to show the microstructural changes in the vessel wall during laser ablation. Since current ablation procedures often injure surrounding tissue, the ability to minimize collateral damage to the adjoining tissue represents a useful advantage of this system. This study suggests a possible role for OCT in the guidance of intravascular procedures.

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