Format
Sort by
Items per page

Send to

Choose Destination

Links from PubMed

Items: 1 to 20 of 222

1.

OCT compared with IVUS in a coronary lesion assessment: the OPUS-CLASS study.

Kubo T, Akasaka T, Shite J, Suzuki T, Uemura S, Yu B, Kozuma K, Kitabata H, Shinke T, Habara M, Saito Y, Hou J, Suzuki N, Zhang S.

JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2013 Oct;6(10):1095-1104. doi: 10.1016/j.jcmg.2013.04.014. Epub 2013 Sep 4.

2.

Discrepancy between frequency domain optical coherence tomography and intravascular ultrasound in human coronary arteries and in a phantom in vitro coronary model.

Kim IC, Nam CW, Cho YK, Park HS, Yoon HJ, Kim H, Chung IS, Han S, Hur SH, Kim YN, Kim KB.

Int J Cardiol. 2016 Oct 15;221:860-6. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2016.07.080. Epub 2016 Jul 5.

3.

Interstudy reproducibility of the second generation, Fourier domain optical coherence tomography in patients with coronary artery disease and comparison with intravascular ultrasound: a study applying automated contour detection.

Jamil Z, Tearney G, Bruining N, Sihan K, van Soest G, Ligthart J, van Domburg R, Bouma B, Regar E.

Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2013 Jan;29(1):39-51. doi: 10.1007/s10554-012-0067-8. Epub 2012 May 26.

4.

Comparison of longitudinal geometric measurement in human coronary arteries between frequency-domain optical coherence tomography and intravascular ultrasound.

Liu Y, Shimamura K, Kubo T, Tanaka A, Kitabata H, Ino Y, Tanimoto T, Shiono Y, Orii M, Yamano T, Yamaguchi T, Hirata K, Imanishi T, Akasaka T.

Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2014 Feb;30(2):271-7. doi: 10.1007/s10554-013-0330-7. Epub 2013 Nov 24.

PMID:
24272334
5.

In vivo comparison of lumen dimensions measured by time domain-, and frequency domain-optical coherence tomography, and intravascular ultrasound.

Kim SJ, Lee H, Kato K, Yonetsu T, Jang IK.

Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2013 Jun;29(5):967-75. doi: 10.1007/s10554-012-0179-1. Epub 2013 Jan 6.

PMID:
23292151
6.

Frequency-domain optical coherence tomography assessment of unprotected left main coronary artery disease-a comparison with intravascular ultrasound.

Fujino Y, Bezerra HG, Attizzani GF, Wang W, Yamamoto H, Chamié D, Kanaya T, Mehanna E, Tahara S, Nakamura S, Costa MA.

Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2013 Sep 1;82(3):E173-83. doi: 10.1002/ccd.24843. Epub 2013 Mar 16.

PMID:
23359350
7.

In vivo comparison of arterial lumen dimensions assessed by co-registered three-dimensional (3D) quantitative coronary angiography, intravascular ultrasound and optical coherence tomography.

Tu S, Xu L, Ligthart J, Xu B, Witberg K, Sun Z, Koning G, Reiber JH, Regar E.

Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2012 Aug;28(6):1315-27. doi: 10.1007/s10554-012-0016-6. Epub 2012 Jan 20.

8.

Optical coherence tomography versus intravascular ultrasound to evaluate coronary artery disease and percutaneous coronary intervention.

Bezerra HG, Attizzani GF, Sirbu V, Musumeci G, Lortkipanidze N, Fujino Y, Wang W, Nakamura S, Erglis A, Guagliumi G, Costa MA.

JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2013 Mar;6(3):228-36. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2012.09.017.

9.

Variability in quantitative and qualitative analysis of intravascular ultrasound and frequency domain optical coherence tomography.

Abnousi F, Waseda K, Kume T, Otake H, Kawarada O, Yong CM, Fitzgerald PJ, Honda Y, Yeung AC, Fearon WF.

Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2013 Sep 1;82(3):E192-9. doi: 10.1002/ccd.24871. Epub 2013 Mar 22.

PMID:
23412754
10.

Anatomically correct three-dimensional coronary artery reconstruction using frequency domain optical coherence tomographic and angiographic data: head-to-head comparison with intravascular ultrasound for endothelial shear stress assessment in humans.

Papafaklis MI, Bourantas CV, Yonetsu T, Vergallo R, Kotsia A, Nakatani S, Lakkas LS, Athanasiou LS, Naka KK, Fotiadis DI, Feldman CL, Stone PH, Serruys PW, Jang IK, Michalis LK.

EuroIntervention. 2015 Aug;11(4):407-15. doi: 10.4244/EIJY14M06_11.

11.

Accurate and reproducible reconstruction of coronary arteries and endothelial shear stress calculation using 3D OCT: comparative study to 3D IVUS and 3D QCA.

Toutouzas K, Chatzizisis YS, Riga M, Giannopoulos A, Antoniadis AP, Tu S, Fujino Y, Mitsouras D, Doulaverakis C, Tsampoulatidis I, Koutkias VG, Bouki K, Li Y, Chouvarda I, Cheimariotis G, Maglaveras N, Kompatsiaris I, Nakamura S, Reiber JH, Rybicki F, Karvounis H, Stefanadis C, Tousoulis D, Giannoglou GD.

Atherosclerosis. 2015 Jun;240(2):510-9. doi: 10.1016/j.atherosclerosis.2015.04.011. Epub 2015 Apr 13.

PMID:
25932791
12.

Comparison between optical coherence tomography and intravascular ultrasound in detecting neointimal healing patterns after stent implantation.

Kochman J, Pietrasik A, Rdzanak A, Jąkała J, Zasada W, Scibisz A, Kołtowski L, Proniewska K, Pociask E, Legutko J.

Kardiol Pol. 2014;72(6):534-40. doi: 10.5603/KP.a2013.0317. Epub 2013 Dec 2.

13.

In vivo comparison of Fourier-domain optical coherence tomography and intravascular ultrasonography.

Ramesh S, Papayannis A, Abdel-karim AR, Banerjee S, Brilakis E.

J Invasive Cardiol. 2012 Mar;24(3):111-5.

14.

Optical coherence tomography compared with intravascular ultrasound and with angiography to guide coronary stent implantation (ILUMIEN III: OPTIMIZE PCI): a randomised controlled trial.

Ali ZA, Maehara A, Généreux P, Shlofmitz RA, Fabbiocchi F, Nazif TM, Guagliumi G, Meraj PM, Alfonso F, Samady H, Akasaka T, Carlson EB, Leesar MA, Matsumura M, Ozan MO, Mintz GS, Ben-Yehuda O, Stone GW; ILUMIEN III: OPTIMIZE PCI Investigators.

Lancet. 2016 Nov 26;388(10060):2618-2628. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)31922-5. Epub 2016 Oct 30.

PMID:
27806900
15.

Optical coherence tomography versus intravascular ultrasound in the evaluation of observer variability and reliability in the assessment of stent deployment: the OCTIVUS study.

Magnus PC, Jayne JE, Garcia-Garcia HM, Swart M, van Es GA, Tijssen J, Kaplan AV.

Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2015 Aug;86(2):229-35. doi: 10.1002/ccd.25854. Epub 2015 Mar 30.

PMID:
25620044
16.

Evaluation of hemodynamically severe coronary stenosis as determined by fractional flow reserve with frequency domain optical coherence tomography measured anatomical parameters.

Zafar H, Ullah I, Dinneen K, Matiullah S, Hanley A, Leahy MJ, Sharif F.

J Cardiol. 2014 Jul;64(1):19-24. doi: 10.1016/j.jjcc.2013.11.009. Epub 2013 Dec 22.

17.

Quantitative precision of optical frequency domain imaging: direct comparison with frequency domain optical coherence tomography and intravascular ultrasound.

Kobayashi Y, Kitahara H, Tanaka S, Okada K, Kimura T, Ikeno F, Yock PG, Fitzgerald PJ, Honda Y.

Cardiovasc Interv Ther. 2016 Apr;31(2):79-88. doi: 10.1007/s12928-015-0349-x. Epub 2015 Aug 14.

18.

Fusion of 3D QCA and IVUS/OCT.

Tu S, Holm NR, Koning G, Huang Z, Reiber JH.

Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2011 Feb;27(2):197-207. doi: 10.1007/s10554-011-9809-2. Epub 2011 Jan 25.

19.

Comparison of Stent Expansion Guided by Optical Coherence Tomography Versus Intravascular Ultrasound: The ILUMIEN II Study (Observational Study of Optical Coherence Tomography [OCT] in Patients Undergoing Fractional Flow Reserve [FFR] and Percutaneous Coronary Intervention).

Maehara A, Ben-Yehuda O, Ali Z, Wijns W, Bezerra HG, Shite J, Généreux P, Nichols M, Jenkins P, Witzenbichler B, Mintz GS, Stone GW.

JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2015 Nov;8(13):1704-14. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2015.07.024.

20.

In Vivo Calcium Detection by Comparing Optical Coherence Tomography, Intravascular Ultrasound, and Angiography.

Wang X, Matsumura M, Mintz GS, Lee T, Zhang W, Cao Y, Fujino A, Lin Y, Usui E, Kanaji Y, Murai T, Yonetsu T, Kakuta T, Maehara A.

JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2017 Aug;10(8):869-879. doi: 10.1016/j.jcmg.2017.05.014.

PMID:
28797408

Supplemental Content

Support Center