Journal Home > Volume 21 , Issue 1
Journal of Geriatric Cardiology 2024, 21(1): 104-129 https://doi.org/10.26599/1671-5411.2024.01.001
Open Access | Issue | Published: 28 January 2024

Role of intravascular ultrasound and optical coherence tomography in intracoronary imaging for coronary artery disease: a systematic review

Show Author's Information Maruf Sarwar1,  Stephen Adedokun2,  Mahesh Anantha Narayanan1,3( )
Department of Cardiovascular Sciences, White River Health, Batesville, AR, USA
Division of Cardiology, University of Tennessee at Memphis, TN, USA
University of Arkansas Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR, USA
Cite this article:
Sarwar M, Adedokun S, Narayanan MA. Role of intravascular ultrasound and optical coherence tomography in intracoronary imaging for coronary artery disease: a systematic review. Journal of Geriatric Cardiology, 2024, 21(1): 104-129. https://doi.org/10.26599/1671-5411.2024.01.001
Download citation
EndNote(RIS)
BibTeX

314

Views

34

Downloads

Citations

0

Crossref

0

WoS

0

Scopus

0

CSCD

Abstract Full text About this article

Coronary angiography has long been the standard for coronary imaging, but it has limitations in assessing vessel wall anatomy and guiding percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Intracoronary imaging techniques like intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) and optical coherence tomography (OCT) can overcome these limitations. IVUS uses ultrasound and OCT uses near-infrared light to visualize coronary pathology in unique ways due to differences in temporal and spatial resolution. These techniques have evolved to offer clinical utility in plaque characterization and vessel assessment during PCI. Meta-analyses and adjusted observational studies suggest that both IVUS and OCT-guided PCI correlate with reduced cardiovascular risks compared to angiographic guidance alone. While IVUS demonstrates consistent clinical outcome benefits, OCT evidence is less robust. IVUS has progressed from early motion detection to high-resolution systems, with smaller compatible catheters. OCT utilizes near infrared light to achieve unparalleled resolutions, but requires temporary blood clearance for optimal imaging. Enhanced visualization and guidance make IVUS and OCT well-suited for higher risk PCI in patients with diabetes and chronic kidney disease by allowing detailed visualization of complex lesions and ensuring optimal stent deployment and positioning in PCI for patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease, improving outcomes. IVUS and recent advancements in zero- and low-contrast OCT techniques can reduce nephrotoxic contrast exposure, thus helping to minimize PCI complications in these high-risk patient groups. IVUS and OCT provide valuable insights into coronary pathophysiology and guide interventions precisely compared to angiography alone. Both have comparable clinical outcomes, emphasizing the need for tailored imaging choices based on clinical scenarios. Continued refinement and integration of intravascular imaging will likely play a pivotal role in optimizing coronary interventions and outcomes. This systematic review aims to delve into the nuances of IVUS and OCT, highlighting their strengths and limitations as PCI adjuncts.


menu
Abstract
Full text
Outline
About this article

Role of intravascular ultrasound and optical coherence tomography in intracoronary imaging for coronary artery disease: a systematic review

Show Author's information Maruf Sarwar1, Stephen Adedokun2, Mahesh Anantha Narayanan1,3( )
Department of Cardiovascular Sciences, White River Health, Batesville, AR, USA
Division of Cardiology, University of Tennessee at Memphis, TN, USA
University of Arkansas Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR, USA

Abstract

Coronary angiography has long been the standard for coronary imaging, but it has limitations in assessing vessel wall anatomy and guiding percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Intracoronary imaging techniques like intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) and optical coherence tomography (OCT) can overcome these limitations. IVUS uses ultrasound and OCT uses near-infrared light to visualize coronary pathology in unique ways due to differences in temporal and spatial resolution. These techniques have evolved to offer clinical utility in plaque characterization and vessel assessment during PCI. Meta-analyses and adjusted observational studies suggest that both IVUS and OCT-guided PCI correlate with reduced cardiovascular risks compared to angiographic guidance alone. While IVUS demonstrates consistent clinical outcome benefits, OCT evidence is less robust. IVUS has progressed from early motion detection to high-resolution systems, with smaller compatible catheters. OCT utilizes near infrared light to achieve unparalleled resolutions, but requires temporary blood clearance for optimal imaging. Enhanced visualization and guidance make IVUS and OCT well-suited for higher risk PCI in patients with diabetes and chronic kidney disease by allowing detailed visualization of complex lesions and ensuring optimal stent deployment and positioning in PCI for patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease, improving outcomes. IVUS and recent advancements in zero- and low-contrast OCT techniques can reduce nephrotoxic contrast exposure, thus helping to minimize PCI complications in these high-risk patient groups. IVUS and OCT provide valuable insights into coronary pathophysiology and guide interventions precisely compared to angiography alone. Both have comparable clinical outcomes, emphasizing the need for tailored imaging choices based on clinical scenarios. Continued refinement and integration of intravascular imaging will likely play a pivotal role in optimizing coronary interventions and outcomes. This systematic review aims to delve into the nuances of IVUS and OCT, highlighting their strengths and limitations as PCI adjuncts.

References(89)

[1]

Zhang H, Mu L, Hu S, et al. Comparison of physician visual assessment with quantitative coronary angiography in assessment of stenosis severity in China. JAMA Intern Med 2018; 178: 239−247.
DOI Google Scholar
[2]

Glagov S, Weisenberg E, Zarins CK, et al. Compensatory enlargement of human atherosclerotic coronary arteries. N Engl J Med 1987; 316: 1371−1375.
DOI Google Scholar
[3]

Tonino PA, Fearon WF, De Bruyne B, et al. Angiographic versus functional severity of coronary artery stenoses in the FAME study fractional flow reserve versus angiography in multivessel evaluation. J Am Coll Cardiol 2010; 55: 2816−2821.
DOI Google Scholar
[4]

De Bruyne B, Pijls NH, Kalesan B, et al. Fractional flow reserve-guided PCI versus medical therapy in stable coronary disease. N Engl J Med 2012; 367: 991−1001.
DOI Google Scholar
[5]

Buccheri S, Franchina G, Romano S, et al. Clinical outcomes following intravascular imaging-guided versus coronary angiography-guided percutaneous coronary intervention with stent implantation: a systematic review and bayesian network meta-analysis of 31 studies and 17, 882 patients. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2017; 10: 2488−2498.
DOI Google Scholar
[6]

Smilowitz NR, Mohananey D, Razzouk L, et al. Impact and trends of intravascular imaging in diagnostic coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention in inpatients in the United States. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2018; 92: E410−E415.
DOI Google Scholar
[7]

Edler I, Hertz CH. The use of ultrasonic reflectoscope for the continuous recording of the movements of heart walls. Clin Physiol Funct Imaging 2004; 24: 118−136.
DOI Google Scholar
[8]

Mintz GS, Nissen SE, Anderson WD, et al. American College of Cardiology clinical expert consensus document on standards for acquisition, measurement and reporting of Intravascular Ultrasound Studies (IVUS). A report of the American College of Cardiology Task Force on Clinical Expert Consensus Documents. J Am Coll Cardiol 2001; 37: 1478−1492.
Google Scholar
[9]
Bom N, Carlier SG, van der Steen AF, Lancée CT. Intravascular scanners. Ultrasound Med Biol 2000; 26 Suppl 1: S6-S9.
DOI
[10]

Hibi K, Takagi A, Zhang X, et al. Feasibility of a novel blood noise reduction algorithm to enhance reproducibility of ultra-high-frequency intravascular ultrasound images. Circulation 2000; 102: 1657−1663.
DOI Google Scholar
[11]

Huang D, Swanson EA, Lin CP, et al. Optical coherence tomography. Science 1991; 254: 1178−1181.
DOI Google Scholar
[12]

Terashima M, Kaneda H, Suzuki T. The role of optical coherence tomography in coronary intervention. Kor ean J Intern Med 2012; 27: 1−12.
DOI Google Scholar
[13]

Swanson EA, Izatt JA, Hee MR, et al. In vivo retinal imaging by optical coherence tomography. Opt Lett 1993; 18: 1864−1866.
DOI Google Scholar
[14]

Barlis P, Schmitt JM. Current and future developments in intracoronary optical coherence tomography imaging. EuroIntervention 2009; 4: 529−533.
DOI Google Scholar
[15]

Brezinski M, Saunders K, Jesser C, et al. Index matching to improve optical coherence tomography imaging through blood. Circulation 2001; 103: 1999−2003.
DOI Google Scholar
[16]

Takarada S, Imanishi T, Liu Y, et al. Advantage of next-generation frequency-domain optical coherence tomography compared with conventional time-domain system in the assessment of coronary lesion. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2010; 75: 202−206.
DOI Google Scholar
[17]

Jang IK, Bouma BE, Kang DH, et al. Visualization of coronary atherosclerotic plaques in patients using optical coherence tomography: comparison with intravascular ultrasound. J Am Coll Cardiol 2002; 39: 604−609.
DOI Google Scholar
[18]

Tearney GJ, Regar E, Akasaka T, et al. Consensus standards for acquisition, measurement, and reporting of intravascular optical coherence tomography studies: a report from the International Working Group for Intravascular Optical Coherence Tomography Standardization and Validation. J Am Coll Cardiol 2012; 59: 1058−1072.
DOI Google Scholar
[19]

Imola F, Mallus MT, Ramazzotti V, et al. Safety and feasibility of frequency domain optical coherence tomography to guide decision making in percutaneous coronary intervention. EuroIntervention 2010; 6: 575−581.
DOI Google Scholar
[20]

Lowe HC, Narula J, Fujimoto JG, Jang IK. Intracoronary optical diagnostics current status, limitations, and potential. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2011; 4: 1257−1270.
DOI Google Scholar
[21]

Parise H, Maehara A, Stone GW, et al. Meta-analysis of randomized studies comparing intravascular ultrasound versus angiographic guidance of percutaneous coronary intervention in pre-drug-eluting stent era. Am J Cardiol 2011; 107: 374−382.
DOI Google Scholar
[22]

Wang Y, Mintz GS, Gu Z, et al. Meta-analysis and systematic review of intravascular ultrasound versus angiography-guided drug eluting stent implantation in left main coronary disease in 4592 patients. BMC Cardiovasc Disord 2018; 18: 115.
DOI Google Scholar
[23]

Kim BK, Hong MK, Shin DH, et al. A new strategy for discontinuation of dual antiplatelet therapy: the RESET Trial (REal Safety and Efficacy of 3-month dual antiplatelet Therapy following Endeavor zotarolimus-eluting stent implantation). J Am Coll Cardiol 2012; 60: 1340−1348.
DOI Google Scholar
[24]

Alberti A, Giudice P, Gelera A, et al. Understanding the economic impact of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS). Eur J Health Econ 2016; 17: 185−193.
DOI Google Scholar
[25]

Meneveau N, Souteyrand G, Motreff P, et al. Optical coherence tomography to optimize results of percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with non-st-elevation acute coronary syndrome: results of the multicenter, randomized DOCTORS Study (Does Optical Coherence Tomography Optimize Results of Stenting). Circulation 2016; 134: 906−917.
DOI Google Scholar
[26]

Ali ZA, Landmesser U, Maehara A, et al. Optical coherence tomography-guided versus angiography-guided PCI. N Engl J Med 2024; 390: 185.
DOI Google Scholar
[27]

Ali ZA, Karimi Galougahi K, Maehara A, et al. Outcomes of optical coherence tomography compared with intravascular ultrasound and with angiography to guide coronary stent implantation: one-year results from the ILUMIEN III: OPTIMIZE PCI trial. EuroIntervention 2021; 16: 1085−1091.
DOI Google Scholar
[28]

Ali ZA, Maehara A, Généreux P, et al. Optical coherence tomography compared with intravascular ultrasound and with angiography to guide coronary stent implantation (ILUMIEN III: OPTIMIZE PCI): a randomized controlled trial. Lancet 2016; 388: 2618−2628.
DOI Google Scholar
[29]

Prati F, Romagnoli E, Burzotta F, et al. Clinical impact of OCT findings during PCI: The CLI-OPCI II Study. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 2015; 8: 1297−1305.
DOI Google Scholar
[30]

Kubo T, Akasaka T, Shite J, et al. OCT compared with IVUS in a coronary lesion assessment: the OPUS-CLASS study. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 2013; 6: 1095−1104.
DOI Google Scholar
[31]

Lee SY, Kim JS, Yoon HJ, et al. Early strut coverage in patients receiving drug-eluting stents and its implications for dual antiplatelet therapy: a randomized trial. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 2018; 11: 1810−1819.
DOI Google Scholar
[32]
Räber L, Mintz GS, Koskinas KC, et al. Clinical use of intracoronary imaging. Part 1: guidance and optimization of coronary interventions. An expert consensus document of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions. EuroIntervention 2018; 14: 656–677.
DOI
[33]

Gerbaud E, Weisz G, Tanaka A, et al. Multi-laboratory inter-institute reproducibility study of IVOCT and IVUS assessments using published consensus document definitions. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging 2016; 17: 756−764.
DOI Google Scholar
[34]

Kini AS, Vengrenyuk Y, Yoshimura T, et al. Fibrous cap thickness by optical coherence tomography in vivo. J Am Coll Cardiol 2017; 69: 644−657.
DOI Google Scholar
[35]

Sheet D, Karamalis A, Eslami A, et al. Hunting for necrosis in the shadows of intravascular ultrasound. Comput Med Imaging Graph 2014; 38: 104−112.
DOI Google Scholar
[36]

Otsuka F, Joner M, Prati F, et al. Clinical classification of plaque morphology in coronary disease. Nat Rev Cardiol 2014; 11: 379−389.
DOI Google Scholar
[37]
Maehara A, Ben-Yehuda O, Ali Z, et al. 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). JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2015; 8: 1704–1714.
DOI
[38]
Kubo T, Shinke T, Okamura T, et al. Optical frequency domain imaging vs. intravascular ultrasound in percutaneous coronary intervention (OPINION trial): one-year angiographic and clinical results. Eur Heart J 2017; 38: 3139–3147.
DOI
[39]

Hausmann D, Erbel R, Alibelli-Chemarin MJ, et al. The safety of intracoronary ultrasound. A multicenter survey of 2207 examinations. Circulation 1995; 91: 623−630.
DOI Google Scholar
[40]

Batkoff BW, Linker DT. Safety of intracoronary ultrasound: data from a Multicenter European Registry. 3.0.CO;2-9">Ca thet Cardiovasc Diagn 1996; 38: 238−241.
DOI Google Scholar
[41]

Stone GW, Maehara A, Lansky AJ, et al. A prospective natural-history study of coronary atherosclerosis. N Engl J Med 2011; 364: 226−235.
DOI Google Scholar
[42]

van der Sijde JN, Karanasos A, van Ditzhuijzen NS, et al. Safety of optical coherence tomography in daily practice: a comparison with intravascular ultrasound. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging 2017; 18: 467−474.
DOI Google Scholar
[43]

Jones DA, Rathod KS, Koganti S, et al. Angiography alone versus angiography plus optical coherence tomography to guide percutaneous coronary intervention: outcomes from the Pan-London PCI cohort. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2018; 11: 1313−1321.
DOI Google Scholar
[44]

Yoon HJ, Hur SH. Optimization of stent deployment by intravascular ultrasound. Korean J Intern Med 2012; 27: 30−38.
DOI Google Scholar
[45]

Tan YY, Man XX, Liu LY, Xu H. Comparison of clinical outcomes between intravascular ultrasound-guided and angiography-guided drug-eluting stent implantation: A meta-analysis of randomised control trials and systematic review. Int Wound J 2019; 16: 649−658.
DOI Google Scholar
[46]

Maehara A, Mintz GS, Witzenbichler B, et al. Relationship between intravascular ultrasound guidance and clinical outcomes after drug-eluting stents. Circ Cardiovasc Interv 2018; 11: e006243.
DOI Google Scholar
[47]

Jasti V, Ivan E, Yalamanchili V, et al. Correlations between fractional flow reserve and intravascular ultrasound in patients with an ambiguous left main coronary artery stenosis. Circulation 2004; 110: 2831−2836.
DOI Google Scholar
[48]

de la Torre Hernandez JM, Hernández Hernandez F, Alfonso F, et al. Prospective application of pre-defined intravascular ultrasound criteria for assessment of intermediate left main coronary artery lesions results from the multicenter LITRO study. J Am Coll Cardiol 2011; 58: 351−358.
DOI Google Scholar
[49]

Abizaid AS, Mintz GS, Abizaid A, et al. One-year follow-up after intravascular ultrasound assessment of moderate left main coronary artery disease in patients with ambiguous angiograms. J Am Coll Cardiol 1999; 34: 707−715.
DOI Google Scholar
[50]

Dato I, Burzotta F, Trani C, et al. Optical coherence tomography guidance for the management of angiographically intermediate left main bifurcation lesions: Early clinical experience. Int J Cardiol 2017; 248: 108−113.
DOI Google Scholar
[51]

Abizaid A, Mintz GS, Pichard AD, et al. Clinical, intravascular ultrasound, and quantitative angiographic determinants of the coronary flow reserve before and after percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty. Am J Cardiol 1998; 82: 423−428.
DOI Google Scholar
[52]

Abizaid AS, Mintz GS, Mehran R, et al. Long-term follow-up after percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty was not performed based on intravascular ultrasound findings: importance of lumen dimensions. Circulation 1999; 100: 256−261.
DOI Google Scholar
[53]

Bech GJ, De Bruyne B, Pijls NH, et al. Fractional flow reserve to determine the appropriateness of angioplasty in moderate coronary stenosis: a randomized trial. Circulation 2001; 103: 2928−2934.
DOI Google Scholar
[54]

Tonino PA, De Bruyne B, Pijls NH, et al. Fractional flow reserve versus angiography for guiding percutaneous coronary intervention. N Engl J Med 2009; 360: 213−224.
DOI Google Scholar
[55]
Zimmermann FM, Ferrara A, Johnson NP, et al. Deferral vs. performance of percutaneous coronary intervention of functionally non-significant coronary stenosis: 15-year follow-up of the DEFER trial. Eur Heart J 2015; 36: 3182–3188.
DOI
[56]

Johnson NP, Tóth GG, Lai D, et al. Prognostic value of fractional flow reserve: linking physiologic severity to clinical outcomes. J Am Coll Cardiol 2014; 64: 1641−1654.
Google Scholar
[57]

Nam CW, Yoon HJ, Cho YK, et al. Outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention in intermediate coronary artery disease: fractional flow reserve-guided versus intravascular ultrasound-guided. JACC Cardiova sc Interv 2010; 3: 812−817.
DOI Google Scholar
[58]

Briguori C, Anzuini A, Airoldi F, et al. Intravascular ultrasound criteria for the assessment of the functional significance of intermediate coronary artery stenoses and comparison with fractional flow reserve. Am J Cardiol 2001; 87: 136−141.
DOI Google Scholar
[59]

Bezerra HG, Attizzani GF, Sirbu V, et al. Optical coherence tomography versus intravascular ultrasound to evaluate coronary artery disease and percutaneous coronary intervention. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2013; 6: 228−236.
DOI Google Scholar
[60]

Ramasamy A, Chen Y, Zanchin T, et al. Optical coherence tomography enables more accurate detection of functionally significant intermediate non-left main coronary artery stenoses than intravascular ultrasound: A meta-analysis of 6919 patients and 7537 lesions. Int J Cardiol 2020; 301: 226−234.
DOI Google Scholar
[61]

Puri R, Nissen SE, Arsenault BJ, et al. Effect of C-reactive protein on lipoprotein(a)-associated cardiovascular risk in optimally treated patients with high-risk vascular disease: a prespecified secondary analysis of the ACCELERATE Trial. JAMA Cardiol 2020; 5: 1136−1143.
DOI Google Scholar
[62]

von Birgelen C, Hartmann M, Mintz GS, Baumgart D, Schmermund A, Erbel R. Relation between progression and regression of atherosclerotic left main coronary artery disease and serum cholesterol levels as assessed with serial long-term (> or =12 months) follow-up intravascular ultrasound. Circulation 2003; 108: 2757−2762.
DOI Google Scholar
[63]

Nissen SE. Effect of intensive lipid lowering on progression of coronary atherosclerosis: evidence for an early benefit from the Reversal of Atherosclerosis with Aggressive Lipid Lowering (REVERSAL) trial. Am J Cardiol 2005; 96: 61F−68F.
DOI Google Scholar
[64]

Okazaki S, Yokoyama T, Miyauchi K, et al. Early statin treatment in patients with acute coronary syndrome: demonstration of the beneficial effect on atherosclerotic lesions by serial volumetric intravascular ultrasound analysis during half a year after coronary event: the ESTABLISH Study. Circulation 2004; 110: 1061−1068.
DOI Google Scholar
[65]

Nissen SE, Nicholls SJ, Sipahi I, et al. Effect of very high-intensity statin therapy on regression of coronary atherosclerosis: the ASTEROID trial. JAMA 2006; 295: 1556−1565.
DOI Google Scholar
[66]

Arbab-Zadeh A, Fuster V. The myth of the "vulnerable plaque": transitioning from a focus on individual lesions to atherosclerotic disease burden for coronary artery disease risk assessment. J Am Coll Cardiol 2015; 65: 846−855.
DOI Google Scholar
[67]

Sano K, Kawasaki M, Ishihara Y, et al. Assessment of vulnerable plaques causing acute coronary syndrome using integrated backscatter intravascular ultrasound. J Am Coll Cardiol 2006; 47: 734−741.
DOI Google Scholar
[68]

Kataoka Y, Wolski K, Uno K, et al. Spotty calcification as a marker of accelerated progression of coronary atherosclerosis: insights from serial intravascular ultrasound. J Am Coll Cardiol 2012; 59: 1592−1597.
DOI Google Scholar
[69]

Uemura S, Ishigami K, Soeda T, et al. Thin-cap fibroatheroma and microchannel findings in optical coherence tomography correlate with subsequent progression of coronary atheromatous plaques. Eur Heart J 2012; 33: 78−85.
DOI Google Scholar
[70]

Burlacu A, Tinica G, Brinza C, et al. Safety and efficacy of minimum-or zero-contrast IVUS–guided percutaneous coronary interventions in chronic kidney disease patients: a systematic review. J Clin Med 2021; 10: 1996.
DOI Google Scholar
[71]

Sakai K, Ikari Y, Nanasato M, et al. Impact of intravascular ultrasound-guided minimum-contrast coronary intervention on 1-year clinical outcomes in patients with stage 4 or 5 advanced chronic kidney disease. Cardiovasc Interv Ther 2019; 34: 234−241.
DOI Google Scholar
[72]

Sacha J, Gierlotka M, Lipski P, et al. Zero-contrast percutaneous coronary interventions to preserve kidney function in patients with severe renal impairment and hemodialysis subjects. Postepy Kardiol Interwencyjnej 2019; 15: 137−142.
DOI Google Scholar
[73]

Ali ZA, Karimi GK, Nazif T, et al. Imaging- and physiology-guided percutaneous coronary intervention without contrast administration in advanced renal failure: a feasibility, safety, and outcome study. Eur Heart J 2016; 37: 3090−3095.
DOI Google Scholar
[74]

Kumar P, Jino B, Manu R, et al. IVUS guided rota assisted left main zero-contrast PCI in a patient with CKD. IHJ Cardiovascular Case Reports (CVCR) 2020; 4: 49−52.
DOI Google Scholar
[75]
Patel NJ, Jost C, Barry MD, et al. Zero Contrast PCI Using SyncVision Precision Guidance. https://www.cathlabdigest.com/content/zero-contrast-pci-using-syncvision-precision-guidance (accessed on 19 July 2023).
[76]
Rahim H, Sethi S, Karampaliotis D, et al. Imaging and Physiology-Guided PCI without Contrast Administration in Advanced Renal Failure. https://www.pcronline.com/Cases-resources-images/Cases/Read-share-cases/2019/Imaging-and-physiology-guided-PCI-without-contrast-administration-in-advanced-renal-failure?auth=true (accessed on 19 July 2023).
[77]

Shrivastava A, Nath RK, Mahapatra HS, et al. Ultra-low CONtraSt PCI vs conVEntional PCI in patients of ACS with increased risk of CI-AKI (CONSaVE-AKI). In dian Heart J 2022; 74: 363−368.
DOI Google Scholar
[78]

Liu ZY, Yin ZH, Liang CY, et al. Zero contrast optical coherence tomography-guided percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction and chronic kidney disease. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2021; 97(Suppl 2): 1072−1079.
DOI Google Scholar
[79]

Azzalini L, Laricchia A, Regazzoli D, et al. Ultra-low contrast percutaneous coronary intervention to minimize the risk for contrast-induced acute kidney injury in patients with severe chronic kidney disease. J Invasive Cardiol 2019; 31: 176−182.
Google Scholar
[80]

Kurogi K, Ishii M, Sakamoto K, et al. Optical coherence tomography guided percutaneous coronary intervention with low-molecular weight dextran- effect on renal function. Circ J 2020; 84: 917−925.
DOI Google Scholar
[81]

Mahesh NK, Gupta A, Barward P, et al. Study of saline optical coherence tomography-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (SOCT-PCI Study). Indian Heart J 2020; 72: 239−243.
DOI Google Scholar
[82]

Gupta A, Chhikara S, Vijayvergiya R, et al. Saline as an alternative to radio-contrast for optical coherence tomography-guided percutaneous coronary intervention: a prospective comparison. Cardiovasc Revasc Med 2022; 34: 86−91.
DOI Google Scholar
[83]

Arora S, Ofstad AP, Ulimoen GR, et al. Asymptomatic coronary artery disease in a Norwegian cohort with type 2 diabetes: a prospective angiographic study with intravascular ultrasound evaluation. Cardiovasc Diabetol 2019; 18: 26.
DOI Google Scholar
[84]

Johansen OE, Gullestad L, Blaasaas KG, et al. Effects of structured hospital-based care compared with standard care for Type 2 diabetes-the asker and baerum cardiovascular diabetes study, a randomized trial. Diabet Med 2007; 24: 1019−1027.
DOI Google Scholar
[85]

Rahman N, Ullah I, Adnan G, et al. Clinical outcomes and prevalence of intravascular ultrasound use at a tertiary care hospital in a south Asian country. J Clin Imaging Sci 2021; 11: 42.
DOI Google Scholar
[86]

Kennedy MW, Fabris E, Ijsselmuiden AJ, et al. Combined optical coherence tomography morphologic and fractional flow reserve hemodynamic assessment of non- culprit lesions to better predict adverse event outcomes in diabetes mellitus patients: COMBINE (OCT-FFR) prospective study. Rationale and design. Cardiovasc Diabetol 2016; 15: 144.
DOI Google Scholar
[87]

Kedhi E, Berta B, Roleder T, et al. Thin-cap fibroatheroma predicts clinical events in diabetic patients with normal fractional flow reserve: the COMBINE OCT-FFR trial. Eur Heart J 2021; 42: 4671−4679.
DOI Google Scholar
[88]

Fabris E, Berta B, Roleder T, et al. Thin-cap fibroatheroma rather than any lipid plaques increases the risk of cardiovascular events in diabetic patients: insights from the COMBINE OCT-FFR Trial. Circ Cardiovasc Interv 2022; 15: e011728.
DOI Google Scholar
[89]
Khurwolah MR, Meng HY, Wang YS, et al. Safety and efficacy of frequency-domain optical coherence tomography in evaluating and treating intermediate coronary lesions. World J Cardiol 2018; 10: 222–233.
DOI
Publication history
Copyright
Rights and permissions

Publication history

Published: 28 January 2024
Issue date: January 2024

Copyright

© 2024 JGC All rights reserved

Rights and permissions

Return