Key result
Intracoronary imaging tools, specifically intravascular ultrasound and optical coherence tomography, provide detailed, objective assessment of coronary disease extent and morphology compared to angiography.
Why the study?
Coronary angiography has limitations in assessing stenosis severity and vessel metrics, necessitating intracoronary imaging for detailed evaluation and guidance of PCI.
Intracoronary imaging with IVUS or OCT offsets the limitations of angiography by providing detailed, objective assessment of disease extent, morphology, and stent deployment during complex PCI.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Intracoronary imaging may refine PCI lesion assessment beyond angiography; leaves open outcome benefits in prospective trials.
Intracoronary imaging has the capability of accurately measuring vessel and stenosis dimensions, assessing vessel integrity, characterising lesion morphology and guiding optimal percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Coronary angiography used to detect and assess coronary stenosis severity has limitations. The 2D nature of fluoroscopic imaging provides lumen profile only and the assessment of coronary stenosis by visual estimation is subjective and prone to error. Performing PCI based on coronary angiography alone is inadequate for determining key metrics of the vessel such as dimension, extent of disease, and plaque distribution and composition. The advent of intracoronary imaging has offset the limitations of angiography and has shifted the paradigm to allow a detailed, objective appreciation of disease extent and morphology, vessel diameter, stent size and deployment and healing after PCI. It has become an essential tool in complex PCI, including rotational atherectomy, in follow-up of novel drug-eluting stent platforms and understanding the pathophysiology of stent failure after PCI (e.g. following stent thrombosis or in-stent restenosis). In this review we look at the two currently available and commonly used intracoronary imaging tools – intravascular ultrasound and optical coherence tomography – and the merits of each.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Koganti et al. (2016) conducted a review in Coronary stenosis requiring percutaneous coronary intervention. Intracoronary imaging (Intravascular ultrasound and optical coherence tomography) vs. Coronary angiography was evaluated. Intracoronary imaging tools, specifically intravascular ultrasound and optical coherence tomography, provide detailed, objective assessment of coronary disease extent and morphology compared to angiography.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: