A comparison of three multimodality coronary 3D reconstruction methods

Tsompou, Panagiota; Siogkas, Panagiotis K.; Sakellarios, Antonis I.; Andrikos, Ioannis; Kigka, Vassiliki I.; Lemos, Pedro A.; Michalis, Lampros K.; Fotiadis, Dimitrios I.

doi:10.1109/embc.2019.8857582

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, the CCTA mean lumen area was found to be larger than the IVUS/ICA mean lumen area, which was supported by Park et al (15) and Gauss et al (28), but was different from the reports by Doh et al (29). These contradictory results may be due to discrepancies in the lumen delineation method, lesion characteristics, stenosis severity, lesion location side branch exclusion in IVUS and small sample size (30,31). In our study, the delineation of IVUS was manually managed to ensure the accuracy and precision of the lumen morphology.…”

Section: Comparison Between Ccta-and Ivus-derived Morphology Measurementmentioning

confidence: 82%

Validation of hemodynamic stress calculation in coronary computed tomography angiography versus intravascular ultrasound

Ding¹,

Liu²,

Wang³

et al. 2023

Quant Imaging Med Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Development in computational fluid dynamics and 3D construction could facilitate the calculation of hemodynamic stresses in coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA). However, the agreement between CCTA derived stresses and intravascular ultrasound/intravascular coronary angiography (IVUS/ICA)-derived stresses remains undetermined. Thus, the purpose of this study is to investigate if CCTA can serve as alternative to IVUS/ICA for hemodynamic evaluation.Methods: In this retrospective study, 13 patients (14 arteries) with unstable angina who underwent both CCTA and IVUS/ICA at an interval of less than 7 days were consecutively included at the Chinese PLA General Hospital within the year of 2021. Slice-level minimal lumen area (MLA), percent area stenosis, velocity, pressure, Reynolds number, wall shear stress (WSS) and axial plaque stress (APS) were determined by both modalities. The agreement between CCTA and IVUS/ICA was assessed using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), Pearson's correlation coefficient and Bland-Altman analysis.Results: CCTA overestimated the degree of area stenosis (50.22%±16.15% vs. 36.41%±19.37%, P=0.004) with the MLA showing no significant difference (5.81±2.24 vs. 6.72±2.04 mm 2 , P=0.126). No statistical difference was observed in WSS (6.57±6.26 vs. 5.98±5.55 Pa, P=0.420) and APS (16.03±1,159.45 vs. −1.27±890.39 Pa, P=0.691) between CCTA and IVUS. Good correlation was found in velocity (ICC: 0.796, 95% CI: 0.752-0.833), Reynolds number (ICC: 0.810, 95% CI: 0.768-0.844) and WSS (ICC: 0.769, 95% CI: 0.718-0.810), while the ICC of APS was (ICC: 0.341, 95% CI: 0.197-0.458), indicating a relatively poor correlation.Conclusions: CCTA can serve as a satisfactory alternative to the reference standard, IVUS/ICA in morphology simulation and hemodynamic stress calculation, especially in the calculation of WSS.

show abstract