Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22169957›Full record

ArticleThe international journal of cardiovascular imaging2012

In vivo assessment of bifurcation optimal viewing angles and bifurcation angles by three-dimensional (3D) quantitative coronary angiography.

Shengxian Tu, Jing Jing, Niels R Holm, Kevin Onsea, Tao Zhang, Tom Adriaenssens, Christophe Dubois, Walter Desmet, Leif Thuesen, Yundai Chen and 1 more

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in The international journal of cardiovascular imaging, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

24 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Crush techniques for percutaneous coronary intervention of bifurcation lesions.EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2022
    Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Efficacy of coronary imaging on bifurcation intervention.Cardiovascular intervention and therapeutics · 2021
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Observational
  18. Article
  19. Cardiovascular imaging 2012 in the International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2013
    Review
  20. Article
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

11 authors.

Shengxian TuDivision of Image Processing, Department of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Albinusdreef 2, 2300 RC Leiden, The Netherlands. S.T.Tu@lumc.nl
Jing Jing
Niels R Holm
Kevin Onsea
Tao Zhang
Tom Adriaenssens
Christophe Dubois
Walter Desmet
Leif Thuesen
Yundai Chen
Johan H C Reiber

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Evaluation and stenting of coronary bifurcation lesions may benefit from optimal angiographic views. The anatomy-defined bifurcation optimal viewing angle (ABOVA) is characterized by having an orthogonal view of the bifurcation, such that overlap and foreshortening at the ostium are minimized. However, due to the mechanical constraints of the X-ray systems, certain deep angles cannot be reached by the C-arm. Therefore, second best or, so-called obtainable bifurcation optimal viewing angle (OBOVA) has to be used as an alternative. This study assessed the distributions of ABOVA and OBOVA using 3D quantitative coronary angiography in a typical patient population. In addition, the bifurcation angles in four main coronary bifurcations were assessed and compared. Patients with obstructive coronary bifurcation disease were included in this multicenter registry. A novel and validated 3D QCA software package was applied to reconstruct the bifurcations and to calculate the bifurcation angles in 3D. A list of optimal viewing angle candidates including ABOVA was also automatically proposed by the software. In a next step, the operator selected the best viewing angle as OBOVA, while applying a novel overlap prediction approach to assure no overlap between the target bifurcation and other major coronary arteries. A total of 194 bifurcations from 181 patients were assessed. The ABOVA could not be reached in 56.7% of the cases; being 40 (81.6%), 40 (78.4%), 9 (17.6%), and 21 (48.8%) cases for LM/LAD/LCx, LAD/Diagonal, LCx/OM, and PDA/PLA, respectively. Both ABOVA and OBOVA distributed sparsely with large ranges of variance: LM/LAD/LCx, 5 ± 33 RAO, 47 ± 35 Caudal versus 4 ± 39 LAO, 35 ± 16 Caudal; LAD/Diagonal, 4 ± 38 RAO, 50 ± 14 Cranial versus 14 ± 28 LAO, 33 ± 5 Cranial; LCx/OM, 21 ± 32 LAO, 27 ± 17 Caudal versus 18 ± 31 LAO, 25 ± 13 Caudal; PDA/PLA, 34 ± 21 LAO, 36 ± 21 Cranial versus 28 ± 25 LAO, 29 ± 15 Cranial. LM/LAD/LCx had the smallest proximal bifurcation angle (128° ± 24°) and the largest distal bifurcation angle (80° ± 21°), as compared with LAD/Diagonal (151° ± 13º and 48° ± 16º), LCx/OM (146° ± 18º and 57° ± 16°), and PDA/PLA (145° ± 19° and 59° ± 17°). In conclusion, large variabilities in optimal viewing angles existed for all main coronary bifurcations. The anatomy-defined bifurcation optimal viewing angle could not be reached in vivo in roughly half of the cases due to the mechanical constraints of the current X-ray systems. Obtainable bifurcation optimal viewing angle should be provided as an alternative or second best. The bifurcation angles in the left main bifurcation demonstrated the largest variabilities.

Indexed as

Imaging, Three-DimensionalRadiographic Image Interpretation, Computer-AssistedTomography, X-Ray ComputedAdultAgedAged, 80 and overBelgiumChinaCoronary AngiographyCoronary Artery DiseaseDenmarkFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPredictive Value of Tests

Identifiers

PMID22169957
PMCPMC3473185

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.