ArticleThe international journal of cardiovascular imaging2019
In vivo comparison of key quantitative parameters measured with 3D peripheral angiography, 2D peripheral quantitative angiography and intravascular ultrasound.
Article in The international journal of cardiovascular imaging, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cardiovascular imaging 2019 in the International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2020Article
- Optical coherence tomography versus intravascular ultrasound in patients with myocardial infarction: a diagnostic performance study of pre-percutaneous coronary interventions.Brazilian journal of medical and biological research = Revista brasileira de pesquisas medicas e biologica · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to compare the measures of luminal stenosis between the two-dimensional (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) Quantitative Vessel Analysis (QVA) generated by CAAS QVA software and intravascular ultrasound (IVUS). Invasive contrast angiography is considered gold standard for diagnostic imaging and intervention in both coronary and peripheral arterial disease. However, it is based on 2D images depicting complicated 3D arterial anatomy. To overcome these limitations, 3D QVA has been developed to bridge the gap between 2D QVA and endovascular imaging. Thirty porcine femoral angiograms (common, profunda and superficial) with matching intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) pullbacks featuring variable degree of stenosis were analysed by 2D QVA, 3D QVA and quantitative IVUS. All 3 modalities provided similar data regarding the length of the investigated segment. Median lumen diameter was nearly identical in IVUS (4.69 mm) and in 3D QVA (4.76 mm) but quite a bit lower in 2D QVA (4.47 mm, Kruskal-Wallis test p = 0.1648). Lumen area measured in 2D QVA was lower than in IVUS and in 3D QVA. Lumen areas rendered by IVUS and 3D QVA were similar. Bland-Altman plots showed that the lowest differences were observed between IVUS and 3D QVA. IVUS and 3D QVA results were consistently higher than 2D QVA. 3D QVA is a useful surrogate of IVUS for precise luminal morphology measurements of peripheral arteries, rendering results that are much closer to IVUS than 2D QVA can provide.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.