ArticleThe international journal of cardiovascular imaging2026
Experimental comparisons of optical coherence tomography-based versus angiography-based time-averaged wall shear stress estimations.
Article in The international journal of cardiovascular imaging, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
An approach to rapid simulation of time-averaged wall shear stress (TAWSS) on 3D geometries created from 3D Quantitative Coronary Angiography (3D-QCA) methodology has been developed, which enables rapid computational fluid dynamic (CFD) shear stress simulation. We compared TAWSS estimated from 3D-QCA-CFD with optical coherence tomography (OCT)-based CFD simulations in coronary arteries. 15 normal and 5 stenotic coronary arteries in instrumented minipigs were studied. 3D arterial geometries were reconstructed from 3D-QCA and OCT using common centrelines and matched axial positions. Identical boundary conditions were used for both methods through directly measured vessel-specific inlet blood velocities. TAWSS was calculated for axially matched segments (n = 80 for normal arteries; n = 160 for stenotic arteries) and in 3 mm/60° sectors. Mean TAWSS simulation times for 3D-QCA and OCT-based CFD were 17.8 min and ~ 1.5 h respectively. There were significant but numerically small differences in TAWSS for normal arteries (-0.21 ± 0.64 Pa [95%CI -1.04,1.46], p < 0.001), and no significant difference for stenotic arteries (-0.39 ± 3.04 Pa [95%CI -6.35, 5.56], p = 0.25). Axial TAWSS profiles along vessel lengths were similar between the two methods. There is a trend of underestimation by 3D-QCA at higher values of TAWSS compared with OCT, due to differences in geometry dimensions. Similar spatial distributions of TAWSS in both normal and stenotic arteries were observed from co-registered TAWSS maps. This study suggests that 3D-QCA-based TAWSS is feasible in both normal and stenotic arteries and that further clinical evaluation of rapid TAWSS from 3D-QCA is warranted, which may facilitate clinical adoption of TAWSS assessment.
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.