Two-dimensional quantitative coronary angiographic models for bifurcation segmental analysis: In vitro validation of CAAS against precision manufactured plexiglas phantoms

Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions

Volumn 77, Issue 6, 2011, Pages 830-839

  Girasis, Chrysafios ^a   Schuurbiers, Johan C H ^a   Onuma, Yoshinobu ^a   Aben, Jean Paul ^b   Weijers, Bas ^b   Boersma, Eric ^a   Wentzel, Jolanda J ^a   Serruys, Patrick W ^a  

^a ERASMUS MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^b Pie Medical Imaging   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

coronary angiography; in vitro; phantom; reproducibility; software validation

Indexed keywords

POLY(METHYL METHACRYLATE);

ACCURACY; ANGIOCARDIOGRAPHY; ARTERY DIAMETER; ARTICLE; CLASSIFICATION ALGORITHM; COMPUTER MODEL; COMPUTER PROGRAM; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; IMAGE QUALITY; IMAGE RECONSTRUCTION; IN VITRO STUDY; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; PROCESS OPTIMIZATION; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; REPRODUCIBILITY; VALIDATION PROCESS;

CONTRAST MEDIA; CORONARY ANGIOGRAPHY; CORONARY ARTERY DISEASE; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; HUMANS; MODELS, CARDIOVASCULAR; PHANTOMS, IMAGING; POLYMETHYL METHACRYLATE; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SOFTWARE;

EID: 79955393477     PISSN: 15221946     EISSN: 1522726X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/ccd.22844     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Serruys PW, Wijns W, van den Brand M, Ribeiro V, Fioretti P, Simoons ML, Kooijman CJ, Reiber JH, Hugenholtz PG,. Is transluminal coronary angioplasty mandatory after successful thrombolysis? Quantitative coronary angiographic study. Br Heart J 1983; 50: 257-265. (Pubitemid 13000438)
2. Reiber JH, Kooijman CJ, Slager CJ, Gerbrands JJ, Schuurbiers JC, Den Boer A, Wijns W, Serruys PW, Hugenholtz PG,. Coronary artery dimensions from cineangiograms methodology and validation of a computer-assisted analysis procedure. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 1984; 3: 131-141. (Pubitemid 15460724)
3. Serruys PW, Reiber JH, Wijns W, van den Brand M, Kooijman CJ, Ten Katen HJ, Hugenholtz PG,. Assessment of percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty by quantitative coronary angiography: Diameter versus densitometric area measurements. Am J Cardiol 1984; 54: 482-488. (Pubitemid 14073230)
4. Reiber JH, Serruys PW, Kooijman CJ, Wijns W, Slager CJ, Gerbrands JJ, Schuurbiers JC, den Boer A, Hugenholtz PG,. Assessment of short-, medium-, and long-term variations in arterial dimensions from computer-assisted quantitation of coronary cineangiograms. Circulation 1985; 71: 280-288. (Pubitemid 15157088)
5. Koo BK, Kang HJ, Youn TJ, Chae IH, Choi DJ, Kim HS, Sohn DW, Oh BH, Lee MM, Park YB, et al. Physiologic assessment of jailed side branch lesions using fractional flow reserve. J Am Coll Cardiol 2005; 46: 633-637.
6. Goktekin O, Kaplan S, Dimopoulos K, Barlis P, Tanigawa J, Vatankulu MA, Koning G, Tuinenburg JC, Mario CD,. A new quantitative analysis system for the evaluation of coronary bifurcation lesions: Comparison with current conventional methods. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2007; 69: 172-180. (Pubitemid 46214248)
7. Ramcharitar S, Onuma Y, Aben JP, Consten C, Weijers B, Morel MA, Serruys PW,. A novel dedicated quantitative coronary analysis methodology for bifurcation lesions. EuroIntervention 2008; 3: 553-557.
8. Lansky A, Tuinenburg J, Costa M, Maeng M, Koning G, Popma J, Cristea E, Gavit L, Costa R, Rares A, et al. Quantitative angiographic methods for bifurcation lesions: A consensus statement from the European Bifurcation Group. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2009; 73: 258-266.
9. Girasis C, Schuurbiers JC, Onuma Y, Serruys PW, Wentzel JJ,. Novel bifurcation phantoms for validation of quantitative coronary angiography algorithms. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2010; DOI: 10.1002/ccd.22704.
10. Medina A, Suarez de Lezo J, Pan M,. A new classification of coronary bifurcation lesions. Rev Esp Cardiol 2006; 59: 183.
11. Finet G, Gilard M, Perrenot B, Rioufol G, Motreff P, Gavit L, Prost R,. Fractal geometry of arterial coronary bifurcations: A quantitative coronary angiography and intravascular ultrasound analysis. EuroIntervention 2008; 3: 490-498.
12. Gronenschild E, Janssen J, Tijdens F,. CAAS. II: A second generation system for off-line and on-line quantitative coronary angiography. Cathet Cardiovasc Diagn 1994; 33: 61-75. (Pubitemid 24303004)
13. Bland JM, Altman DG,. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986; 1: 307-310. (Pubitemid 16134762)
14. Bland JM, Altman DG,. Applying the right statistics: Analyses of measurement studies. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2003; 22: 85-93. (Pubitemid 36886457)
15. Haase J, Di Mario C, Slager CJ, van der Giessen WJ, den Boer A, de Feyter PJ, Reiber JH, Verdouw PD, Serruys PW,. In-vivo validation of on-line and off-line geometric coronary measurements using insertion of stenosis phantoms in porcine coronary arteries. Cathet Cardiovasc Diagn 1992; 27: 16-27.
16. Di Mario C, Haase J, den Boer A, Reiber JH, Serruys PW,. Edge detection versus densitometry in the quantitative assessment of stenosis phantoms: An in vivo comparison in porcine coronary arteries. Am Heart J 1992; 124: 1181-1189.
17. Haase J, van der Linden MM, Di Mario C, van der Giessen WJ, Foley DP, Serruys PW,. Can the same edge-detection algorithm be applied to on-line and off-line analysis systems? Validation of a new cinefilm-based geometric coronary measurement software. Am Heart J 1993; 126: 312-321. (Pubitemid 23242020)
18. Haase J, Escaned J, van Swijndregt EM, Ozaki Y, Gronenschild E, Slager CJ, Serruys PW,. Experimental validation of geometric and densitometric coronary measurements on the new generation Cardiovascular Angiography Analysis System (CAAS II). Cathet Cardiovasc Diagn 1993; 30: 104-114. (Pubitemid 23292076)
19. Keane D, Haase J, Slager CJ, Montauban van Swijndregt E, Lehmann KG, Ozaki Y, di Mario C, Kirkeeide R, Serruys PW,. Comparative validation of quantitative coronary angiography systems. Results and implications from a multicenter study using a standardized approach. Circulation 1995; 91: 2174-2183.
20. Hausleiter J, Jost S, Nolte CW, Dirschinger J, Kastrati A, Stiel GM, Wunderlich W, Fischer F, Linderer T, Hausmann D, et al. Comparative in-vitro validation of eight first- and second-generation quantitative coronary angiography systems. Coron Artery Dis 1997; 8: 83-90. (Pubitemid 27248433)
21. Van Herck PL, Gavit L, Gorissen P, Wuyts FL, Claeys MJ, Bosmans JM, Benali K, Vrints CJ,. Quantitative coronary arteriography on digital flat-panel system. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2004; 63: 192-200. (Pubitemid 39313413)
22. Tuinenburg JC, Koning G, Seppenwoolde Y, Reiber JH,. Is there an effect of flat-panel-based imaging systems on quantitative coronary and vascular angiography? Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2006; 68: 561-566. (Pubitemid 44546051)
23. Fortin DF, Spero LA, Cusma JT, Santoro L, Burgess R, Bashore TM,. Pitfalls in the determination of absolute dimensions using angiographic catheters as calibration devices in quantitative angiography. Am J Cardiol 1991; 68: 1176-1182.
24. Herrington DM, Siebes M, Sokol DK, Siu CO, Walford GD,. Variability in measures of coronary lumen dimensions using quantitative coronary angiography. J Am Coll Cardiol 1993; 22: 1068-1074. (Pubitemid 23285756)
25. Fischell TA, Maheshwari A, Mirza RA, Haller S, Carter AJ, Popma JJ,. Impact of frame selection on quantitative coronary angiographic analysis after coronary stenting. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2005; 64: 460-467. (Pubitemid 40463443)
26. de Feyter PJ, Serruys PW, Davies MJ, Richardson P, Lubsen J, Oliver MF,. Quantitative coronary angiography to measure progression and regression of coronary atherosclerosis. Value, limitations, and implications for clinical trials. Circulation 1991; 84: 412-423.
27. Haase J, Nugteren SK, Montauban van Swijndregt E, Slager CJ, Di Mario C, de Feyter PJ, Serruys PW,. Digital geometric measurements in comparison to cinefilm analysis of coronary artery dimensions. Cathet Cardiovasc Diagn 1993; 28: 283-290. (Pubitemid 23112522)
28. Dodge JT Jr, Brown BG, Bolson EL, Dodge HT,. Lumen diameter of normal human coronary arteries. Influence of age, sex, anatomic variation, and left ventricular hypertrophy or dilation. Circulation 1992; 86: 232-246.
29. Kamiya A, Takahashi T,. Quantitative assessments of morphological and functional properties of biological trees based on their fractal nature. J Appl Physiol 2007; 102: 2315-2323. (Pubitemid 47080766)
30. Beatt KJ, Luijten HE, de Feyter PJ, van den Brand M, Reiber JH, Serruys PW,. Change in diameter of coronary artery segments adjacent to stenosis after percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty: Failure of percent diameter stenosis measurement to reflect morphologic changes induced by balloon dilation. J Am Coll Cardiol 1988; 12: 315-323.
31. Girasis C, Serruys PW, Onuma Y, Colombo A, Holmes DR Jr, Feldman TE, Bass EJ, Leadley K, Dawkins KD, Morice MC,. 3-Dimensional bifurcation angle analysis in patients with left main disease a substudy of the SYNTAX trial (SYNergy Between Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With TAXus and Cardiac Surgery). JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2010; 3: 41-48.
32. Dzavik V, Kharbanda R, Ivanov J, Ing DJ, Bui S, Mackie K, Ramsamujh R, Barolet A, Schwartz L, Seidelin PH,. Predictors of long-term outcome after crush stenting of coronary bifurcation lesions: importance of the bifurcation angle. Am Heart J 2006; 152: 762-769. (Pubitemid 44396889)
33. Louvard Y, Thomas M, Dzavik V, Hildick-Smith D, Galassi AR, Pan M, Burzotta F, Zelizko M, Dudek D, Ludman P, et al. Classification of coronary artery bifurcation lesions and treatments: Time for a consensus! Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2008; 71: 175-183. (Pubitemid 351293761)