Abstract
Intracoronary ultrasound (ICUS) is often used in studies evaluating new interventional techniques. It is important that quantitative measurements performed with various ICUS imaging equipment and materials are comparable. During evaluation of quantitative coronary ultrasound (QCU) software, it appeared that Boston Scientific Corporation (BSC) 30 MHz catheters connected to a Clearview® ultrasound console showed smaller dimensions of an in vitro phantom model than expected. In cooperation with the manufacturer the cause of this underestimation was determined, which is described in this paper, and the QCU software was extended with an adjustment. Evaluation was performed by performing in vitro measurements on a phantom model consisting of four highly accurate steel rings (perfect reflectors) with diameters of 2, 3, 4 and 5 mm. Relative differences (unadjusted) of the phantom were respectively: 15.92, 13.01, 10.10 and 12.23%. After applying the adjustment: −0.96, −1.84, −1.35 and −1.43%. In vivo measurements were performed on 24 randomly selected ICUS studies. These showed differences for not adjusted vs. adjusted measurements of lumen-, vessel- and plaque volumes of −10.1 ± 1.5, −6.7 ± 0.9 and −4.4 ± 0.6%. An off-line adjustment formula was derived and applied on previous numerical QCU output data showing relative differences for lumen- and vessel volumes of 0.36 ± 0.51 and 0.13 ± 0.31%. 30 MHz BSC catheters connected to a Clearview® ultrasound console underestimate vessel dimensions. This can retrospectively be adjusted within QCU software as well as retrospectively on numerical QCU data using a mathematical model.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Mintz GS, Douek P, Pichard AD, et al. Target lesion calcification in coronary artery disease: an intravascular ultrasound study. J Am Coll Cardiol 1992; 20(5): 1149-1155.
Fitzgerald PJ, St. Goar FG, Connolly AJ, et al. Intravascular ultrasound imaging of coronary arteries. Is three layers the norm? Circulation 1992; 86(1): 154-158.
Nissen SE, Yock P. Intravascular ultrasound: novel pathophysiological insights and current clinical applications. Circulation 2001; 103(4): 604-616.
Sousa JE, Costa MA, Abizaid AC, et al. Sustained suppression of neointimal proliferation by sirolimus-eluting stents: one-year angiographic and intravascular ultrasound follow-up. Circulation 2001; 104(17): 2007-2011.
Hamers R, Bruining N, Knook M, Sabate M, Roelandt JRTC. A novel approach to quantitative analysis of intravascular ultrasound images. In: Computers in Cardiology. Rotterdam: IEEE Computer Society Press, 2001; 589-592.
Roelandt JR, di Mario C, Pandian NG, et al. Threedimensional reconstruction of intracoronary ultrasound images. Rationale, approaches, problems, and directions. Circulation 1994; 90(2): 1044-1055.
Nissen SE, Grines CL, Gurley JC, et al. Application of a new phased-array ultrasound imaging catheter in the assessment of vascular dimensions. In vivo comparison to cineangiography. Circulation 1990; 81(2): 660-666.
Martin K, Spinks D. Measurement of the speed of sound in ethanol/water mixtures. Ultrasound Med Biol 2001; 27(2): 289-291.
von Birgelen C, Mintz GS, de Feyter PJ, et al. Reconstruction and quantification with three-dimensional intracoronary ultrasound. An update on techniques, challenges, and future directions. Eur Heart J 1997; 18(7): 1056-1067.
Bruining N, von Birgelen C, de Feyter PJ, et al. ECG-gated versus nongated three-dimensional intracoronary ultrasound analysis: implications for volumetric measurements. Cathet Cardiovasc Diagn 1998; 43(3): 254-260.
Thomas JD. The DICOM image formatting standard: its role in echocardiography and angiography. Int J Card Imaging 1998; 14(Suppl 1): 1-6.
Bruining N, Sabate M, de Feyter PJ, et al. Quantitative measurements of in-stent restenosis: a comparison between quantitative coronary ultrasound and quantitative coronary angiography. Cathet Cardiovasc Diagn 1999; 48(2): 133-142.
Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986; 1(8476): 307-310.
Stahr P, Rupprecht HJ, Voigtlander T, et al. Importance of calibration for diameter and area determination by intravascular ultrasound. Int J Card Imaging 1996; 12(4): 221-229.
Fort S, Freeman NA, Johnston P, Cohen EA, Foster FS. In vitro and in vivo comparison of three different intravascular ultrasound catheter designs. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2001; 52(3): 382-392.
Dussaillant GR, Mintz GS, Pichard AD, et al. Small stent size and intimal hyperplasia contribute to restenosis: a volumetric intravascular ultrasound analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol 1995; 26(3): 720-724.
Buchwald AB, Werner GS, Moller K, Unterberg C. Expansion of Wiktor stents by oversizing versus high-pressure dilatation: a randomized, intracoronary ultrasoundcontrolled study. Am Heart J 1997; 133(2): 190-196.
Okabe T, Asakura Y, Ishikawa S, Asakura K, Mitamura H, Ogawa S. Determining appropriate small vessels for stenting by intravascular ultrasound. J Invasive Cardiol 2000; 12(12): 625-630.
Briguori C, Tobis J, Nishida T, et al. Discrepancy between angiography and intravascular ultrasound when analysing small coronary arteries. Eur Heart J 2002; 23(3): 247-254.
von Birgelen C, Di Mario C, Li W, et al. Morphometric analysis in three-dimensional intracoronary ultrasound: an in vitro and in vivo study performed with a novel system for the contour detection of lumen and plaque. Am Heart J 1996; 132(3): 516-527.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bruining, N., Hamers, R., Teo, TJ. et al. Adjustment method for mechanical Boston scientific corporation 30 MHz intravascular ultrasound catheters connected to a Clearview® console. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 20, 83–91 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1023/B:CAIM.0000014046.63648.1c
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:CAIM.0000014046.63648.1c