Measuring maximal percent area stenosis poststent placement with intracoronary Doppler and the continuity equation and correlation with intracoronary ultrasound and angiography - 08/09/11
![](/templates/common/images/mail.png)
Abstract |
Quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) and intracoronary ultrasound (ICUS) are methods for anatomic assessment of stent deployment. Intracoronary Doppler is primarily a method for the physiologic assessment of coronary stenoses. It correlates well with traditional noninvasive measurements of lesion significance. Intracoronary Doppler was used for the anatomic assessment of de novo coronary artery stenosis with variable success; however, its use for anatomic assessment of adequate stent deployment is unavailable. A rapid, automated software program was developed based on a modified continuity equation to calculate the maximal in-stent percent area stenosis by comparing the maximal in-stent velocity to an average reference velocity (proximal and distal). This study was designed to compare the Doppler method of an anatomic assessment with QCA and ICUS in 15 patients. Physiologic success of stent deployment was determined by the distal coronary flow reserve to 24 to 36 μg of intracoronary adenosine. Following successful stent deployment, distal coronary flow reserve increased significantly from a baseline of 1.6 ± 0.5 to 2.9 ±1.1. There was a significant correlation between the maximal in-stent percent area stenosis as measured by Doppler and both QCA (r = 0.78, p <0.01) and ICUS (r = 0.84, p <0.01). This study demonstrates that maximal in-stent percent area stenosis can be measured by intracoronary Doppler and a novel software program. The intracoronary Doppler guidewire method can assess the adequacy of stent deployment using both anatomic and physiologic principles and may supplement other quantitative methodologies.
Le texte complet de cet article est disponible en PDF.Plan
![]() | This study was supported by the Miami Heart Research Institute, Miami, Florida; The Rappaport Vascular Biology Program; and the Mayo Foundation, Rochester, Minnesota. |
Vol 84 - N° 6
P. 650-654 - septembre 1999 Retour au numéroBienvenue sur EM-consulte, la référence des professionnels de santé.
L’accès au texte intégral de cet article nécessite un abonnement.
Déjà abonné à cette revue ?