2021
DOI: 10.1002/cnm.3442
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Coronary arterial geometry: A comprehensive comparison of two imaging modalities

Abstract: The characterization of vascular geometry is a fundamental step towards the correct interpretation of coronary artery disease. In this work, we report a comprehensive comparison of the geometry featured by coronary vessels as obtained from coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) and the combination of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) with bi‐plane angiography (AX) modalities. We analyzed 34 vessels from 28 patients with coronary disease, which were deferred to CCTA and IVUS procedures. We discuss agreem… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
1
0
1

Year Published

2022
2022
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
2
1

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 36 publications
(60 reference statements)
0
1
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…27 Estudos sobre fluidodinâmica computacional chamam a atenção à importância das medidas realizadas por equações matemáticas complexas que explicariam melhor como ocorre a distribuição da pressão ao longo da circulação e do fluxo coronários. [28][29][30][31][32][33][34] Limitações Nosso estudo tem algumas limitações. A primeira limitação é o pequeno tamanho amostral e sua natureza retrospectiva (Figura 4).…”
Section: Discussionunclassified
“…27 Estudos sobre fluidodinâmica computacional chamam a atenção à importância das medidas realizadas por equações matemáticas complexas que explicariam melhor como ocorre a distribuição da pressão ao longo da circulação e do fluxo coronários. [28][29][30][31][32][33][34] Limitações Nosso estudo tem algumas limitações. A primeira limitação é o pequeno tamanho amostral e sua natureza retrospectiva (Figura 4).…”
Section: Discussionunclassified
“…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: 71%