Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21264684›Full record

ArticleThe international journal of cardiovascular imaging2011

Fusion of 3D QCA and IVUS/OCT.

Shengxian Tu, Niels R Holm, Gerhard Koning, Zheng Huang, Johan H C Reiber

Open access · hybridAbstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in The international journal of cardiovascular imaging, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
10.9field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed, 74 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Physiome approach for the analysis of vascular flow reserve in the heart and brain.Pflugers Archiv : European journal of physiology · 2017
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Invasive Imaging of Bioresorbable Coronary Scaffolds - A Review.Interventional cardiology (London, England) · 2013
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Optical Coherence Tomography: Potential Clinical Applications.Current cardiovascular imaging reports · 2012
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Cardiovascular imaging 2011 in the International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2012
    Review
  19. QCA, IVUS and OCT in interventional cardiology in 2011.Cardiovascular diagnosis and therapy · 2011
    Review
  20. Dedicated bifurcation analysis: basic principles.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2011
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Shengxian TuDivision of Image Processing, Department of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Albinusdreef 2, 2300 RC Leiden, The Netherlands. S.T.Tu@lumc.nl
Niels R Holm
Gerhard Koning
Zheng Huang
Johan H C Reiber
Leiden University Medical Center · NLAarhus University Hospital · DKCentre for Medical Systems Biology · NLNanfang Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The combination/fusion of quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) and intravascular ultrasound (IVUS)/optical coherence tomography (OCT) depends to a great extend on the co-registration of X-ray angiography (XA) and IVUS/OCT. In this work a new and robust three-dimensional (3D) segmentation and registration approach is presented and validated. The approach starts with standard QCA of the vessel of interest in the two angiographic views (either biplane or two monoplane views). Next, the vessel of interest is reconstructed in 3D and registered with the corresponding IVUS/OCT pullback series by a distance mapping algorithm. The accuracy of the registration was retrospectively evaluated on 12 silicone phantoms with coronary stents implanted, and on 24 patients who underwent both coronary angiography and IVUS examinations of the left anterior descending artery. Stent borders or sidebranches were used as markers for the validation. While the most proximal marker was set as the baseline position for the distance mapping algorithm, the subsequent markers were used to evaluate the registration error. The correlation between the registration error and the distance from the evaluated marker to the baseline position was analyzed. The XA-IVUS registration error for the 12 phantoms was 0.03 ± 0.32 mm (P = 0.75). One OCT pullback series was excluded from the phantom study, since it did not cover the distal stent border. The XA-OCT registration error for the remaining 11 phantoms was 0.05 ± 0.25 mm (P = 0.49). For the in vivo validation, two patients were excluded due to insufficient image quality for the analysis. In total 78 sidebranches were identified from the remaining 22 patients and the registration error was evaluated on 56 markers. The registration error was 0.03 ± 0.45 mm (P = 0.67). The error was not correlated to the distance between the evaluated marker and the baseline position (P = 0.73). In conclusion, the new XA-IVUS/OCT co-registration approach is a straightforward and reliable solution to combine X-ray angiography and IVUS/OCT imaging for the assessment of the extent of coronary artery disease. It provides the interventional cardiologist with detailed information about vessel size and plaque size at every position along the vessel of interest, making this a suitable tool during the actual intervention.

Indexed as

Coronary AngiographyImaging, Three-DimensionalRadiographic Image Interpretation, Computer-AssistedTomography, Optical CoherenceUltrasonography, InterventionalAgedAlgorithmsAngioplasty, Balloon, CoronaryChinaCoronary Artery DiseaseFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPatient SelectionPhantoms, Imaging

Identifiers

PMID21264684
PMCPMC3078305
OpenAlexW2085778513

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.