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

OBJECTIVES The aim of this study was to investigate the reliability of frequency domain optical coherence tomography (FD-OCT) for coronary measurements compared with quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) and intravascular ultrasound (IVUS). BACKGROUND Accurate luminal measurement is expected in FD-OCT because this technology offers high resolution and excellent contrast between lumen and vessel wall. METHODS In 5 medical centers, 100 patients with coronary artery disease were prospectively studied by using angiography, FD-OCT, and IVUS. In addition, 5 phantom models of known lumen dimensions (lumen diameter 3.08 mm; lumen area 7.45 mm(2)) were examined using FD-OCT and IVUS. Quantitative image analyses of the coronary arteries and phantom models were performed by an independent core laboratory. RESULTS In the clinical study, the mean minimum lumen diameter measured by QCA was significantly smaller than that measured by FD-OCT (1.81 ± 0.72 mm vs. 1.91 ± 0.69 mm; p < 0.001) and the minimum lumen diameter measured by IVUS was significantly greater than that measured by FD-OCT (2.09 ± 0.60 mm vs. 1.91 ± 0.69 mm; p < 0.001). The minimum lumen area measured by IVUS was significantly greater than that by FD-OCT (3.68 ± 2.06 mm(2) vs. 3.27 ± 2.22 mm(2); p < 0.001), although a significant correlation was observed between the 2 imaging techniques (r = 0.95, p < 0.001; mean difference 0.41 mm(2)). Both FD-OCT and IVUS exhibited good interobserver reproducibility, but the root-mean-squared deviation between measurements was approximately twice as high for the IVUS measurements compared with the FD-OCT measurements (0.32 mm(2) vs. 0.16 mm(2)). In a phantom model, the mean lumen area according to FD-OCT was equal to the actual lumen area of the phantom model, with low SD; IVUS overestimated the lumen area and was less reproducible than FD-OCT (8.03 ± 0.58 mm(2) vs. 7.45 ± 0.17 mm(2); p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS The results of this prospective multicenter study demonstrate that FD-OCT provides accurate and reproducible quantitative measurements of coronary dimensions in the clinical setting.

[1]  M. Kimura,et al.  Impact of Frequency-Domain Optical Coherence Tomography Guidance for Optimal Coronary Stent Implantation in Comparison With Intravascular Ultrasound Guidance , 2012, Circulation. Cardiovascular interventions.

[2]  P. Serruys,et al.  Quantitative ex vivo and in vivo comparison of lumen dimensions measured by optical coherence tomography and intravascular ultrasound in human coronary arteries. , 2009, Revista espanola de cardiologia.

[3]  Joanna J Wykrzykowska,et al.  First-in-man evaluation of intravascular optical frequency domain imaging (OFDI) of Terumo: a comparison with intravascular ultrasound and quantitative coronary angiography. , 2011, EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology.

[4]  P. Serruys,et al.  In vivo validation of a novel three-dimensional quantitative coronary angiography system (CardiOp-B): comparison with a conventional two-dimensional system (CAAS II) and with special reference to optical coherence tomography. , 2007, EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology.

[5]  Takahiko Suzuki,et al.  Safety and feasibility of an intravascular optical coherence tomography image wire system in the clinical setting. , 2008, The American journal of cardiology.

[6]  K. Hirata,et al.  Factors that influence measurements and accurate evaluation of stent apposition by optical coherence tomography. Assessment using a phantom model. , 2009, Circulation journal : official journal of the Japanese Circulation Society.

[7]  Francesco Prati,et al.  Comparison of optical coherence tomography and intravascular ultrasound for the assessment of in-stent tissue coverage after stent implantation. , 2009, EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology.

[8]  G. Maurer,et al.  Geometric accuracy of intravascular ultrasound imaging. , 1992, Journal of the American Society of Echocardiography : official publication of the American Society of Echocardiography.

[9]  Patrick W. Serruys,et al.  Comparación cuantitativa ex vivo e in vivo de las dimensiones del lumen medidas por tomografía de coherencia óptica y ecografía intravascular en arterias coronarias humanas , 2009 .

[10]  Akiko Maehara,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. , 2012, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[11]  Takashi Akasaka,et al.  Comparison of vascular response after sirolimus-eluting stent implantation between patients with unstable and stable angina pectoris: a serial optical coherence tomography study. , 2008, JACC. Cardiovascular imaging.

[12]  H. Bezerra,et al.  In vitro validation of new Fourier-domain optical coherence tomography. , 2011, EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology.

[13]  F. Prati,et al.  Reproducibility of coronary optical coherence tomography for lumen and length measurements in humans (The CLI-VAR [Centro per la Lotta contro l'Infarto-VARiability] study). , 2012, The American journal of cardiology.

[14]  C von Birgelen,et al.  Quantification of the minimal luminal cross-sectional area after coronary stenting by two- and three-dimensional intravascular ultrasound versus edge detection and videodensitometry. , 1996, The American journal of cardiology.

[15]  Yoshiaki Kawase,et al.  In vivo volumetric analysis of coronary stent using optical coherence tomography with a novel balloon occlusion-flushing catheter: a comparison with intravascular ultrasound. , 2005, Ultrasound in medicine & biology.