Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Am J Cardiol. 1997 Nov 15;80(10):1277-81.

Overestimation of acute lumen gain and late lumen loss by quantitative coronary angiography (compared with intravascular ultrasound) in stented lesions.

Author information

1
Intravascular Ultrasound Imaging and Cardiac Catheterization Laboratories, Washington Hospital Center, D.C., USA.

Abstract

The accurate measurement of lumen dimensions is essential for guidance of interventional procedures and the assessment of acute and late results. This study compared intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) with quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) in the assessment of lumen dimensions before and after intervention, and at follow-up. Two hundred thirty-one consecutive patients treated with Palmaz-Schatz stents and evaluated using serial (before and after intervention, and follow-up) IVUS and QCA were screened. Because IVUS cannot measure dimensions smaller than the imaging catheter, patients having an angiographic minimal lumen diameter (MLD) less than the IVUS catheter (1.0 mm) during any study were excluded, leaving 71 patients in the final study group. IVUS and QCA measurements (reference dimensions and MLD) and calculations (percent diameter stenosis, acute lumen gain, late lumen loss, loss index, and restenosis rates) were compared. Correlation coefficients ranged from 0.641 to 0.816 for measured variables and from 0.280 to 0.680 for calculated variables. Reference lumen dimensions were consistently larger by IVUS than by QCA: 0.50 +/- 0.52 mm before intervention (p <0.0001), 0.46 +/- 0.45 mm after intervention (p <0.0001), and 0.38 +/- 0.53 mm at follow-up (p <0.0001). MLDs measured by IVUS were larger before intervention (0.17 +/- 0.28 mm, p <0.0001), smaller after intervention (0.17 +/- 0.34 mm, p <0.0001), and larger at follow-up (0.14 +/- 0.41 mm, p <0.0001). This resulted in a smaller acute gain and late loss measured by IVUS (0.33 +/- 0.39 and 0.30 +/- 0.47 mm, respectively, both p <0.0001). Although measures of restenosis (i.e., loss index and restenosis rates) were similar, the classification of lesions in individual patients (as restenotic vs nonrestenotic) was significantly different (p = 0.002, concordance rate = 73%). There are systematic differences between IVUS and QCA in the measurement of reference and lesion lumen dimensions. Although indexes of restenosis were similar, classification of lesions in individual patients was different.

PMID:
9388098
DOI:
10.1016/s0002-9149(97)00665-6
[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Elsevier Science
Loading ...
Support Center