ArticleCardiovascular intervention and therapeutics2022
Comparison of quantitative measurements between two different intravascular ultrasound catheters and consoles: in vitro and in vivo studies.
Article in Cardiovascular intervention and therapeutics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Arterial remodeling and plaque changes after balloon angioplasty for de novo coronary lesions using DCB.Cardiovascular intervention and therapeutics · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence-based coronary computed tomography angiography quantification of atherosclerosis burden: comparison with intravascular ultrasound in the INVICTUS Registry.European radiology · 2026Article
- Head-to-head comparison of quantitative measurements between intravascular imaging systems: An in vitro phantom study.International journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Previous studies suggested possible discordant quantitative measurements between different IVUS catheters and/or systems. The purpose of this study was to assess compatibility of two different IVUS catheters and consoles for quantitative measurements of coronary arteries. (1). In vitro study: IVUS imaging was performed in a concentric cylindrical phantom with 6 sections of known, cross-sectional diameter ranging from 3.0 to 8.0 mm. The lumen diameter (LD) and lumen cross-sectional area (LA) were measured and compared. To compare between 2 different IVUS consoles, IVUS images were obtained using a single IVUS catheter (catheter 1) connected to 2 different IVUS consoles (console 1 and 2). To compare between 2 different IVUS catheters, IVUS imaging was obtained using 2 different IVUS catheters (catheter 1 and 2) connected to a single IVUS console (console 2). (2). In vivo study: IVUS imaging was performed in 40 stented coronary arterial segments from 40 patients. The maximal stent diameter (Max SD), minimal stent diameter (minSD), and stent area (SA) were measured at both distal and proximal stent edges and compared between the two IVUS consoles (console 1 and 2) connected to a single IVUS catheter (catheter 1) (n = 20). IVUS imaging was also performed to compare between catheter 1 and 2 connected to IVUS console 2 (n = 20). Both in vitro and in vivo studies showed good correlation between the two IVUS consoles as well as two IVUS catheters. In conclusion, two IVUS catheters and consoles provide comparable IVUS measures both in vitro and in vivo.
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.