Utility of optical coherence tomography and intravascular ultrasound for the evaluation of coronary lesions
Revista Portuguesa de Cardiologia (English Edition), ISSN: 2174-2049, Vol: 32, Issue: 11, Page: 925-929
2013
- 1Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Captures1
- Readers1
Article Description
Optical coherence tomography (OCT) and intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) are imaging methods used in the diagnosis of coronary lesions. IVUS is widely used in interventional cardiology laboratories, but OCT is now increasingly used. Conventional coronary angiography can identify different types of coronary lesions but sometimes is unable to diagnose them correctly. Both intravascular imaging methods are useful for better interpretation of these lesions, and can accurately diagnose ruptured plaques, thrombosis, stent restenosis and hazy images. However, the resolution of OCT is ten times higher than IVUS, and so an accurate diagnosis cannot always be achieved with ultrasound imaging. We present three cases in which IVUS was unable to identify the lesion causing the condition and OCT was required to obtain clearer images that helped to confirm the diagnosis. The advantages and disadvantages of each method are then discussed. A tomografia de coerência ótica (TCO) e o ultrassom intravascular (USIV) são métodos de imagem geralmente utilizados nos serviços de cardiologia de intervenção. O USIV é um sistema de imagem intravascular, muito utilizado nos laboratórios de cardiologia de intervenção. A utilização de TCO começou mais tarde a ser divulgada na prática diagnóstica intracoronária. A angiografia coronária convencional pode identificar diferentes tipos de lesões coronárias que por vezes não são devidamente diagnosticadas. Os métodos de imagem são também utilizados para uma melhor interpretação destas lesões. As roturas de placas, trombose, reestenose de stent e outras imagens nebulosas podem ser diagnosticadas fielmente através da sua utilização. No entanto, a resolução da TCO é 10 vezes superior à do USIV. Portanto não é possível obter sempre um diagnóstico fiel com uma imagem ultra-som. Este artigo apresenta três casos em que a utilização de USIV não foi suficiente para identificar a lesão, tendo sido necessário recorrer à TOC para obter imagens mais claras que ajudaram a confirmar o diagnóstico. Segue-se a discussão das vantagens e desvantagens de cada método.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2174204913002742; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.repce.2013.06.024; https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S2174204913002742; https://dul.usage.elsevier.com/doi/; https://api.elsevier.com/content/article/PII:S2174204913002742?httpAccept=text/xml; https://api.elsevier.com/content/article/PII:S2174204913002742?httpAccept=text/plain; https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.repce.2013.06.024
Elsevier BV
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know