...
  • 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>The Egyptian Heart Journal >Stent boost enhancement compared to intravascular ultrasound in the evaluation of stent expansion in elective percutaneous coronary interventions
【24h】

Stent boost enhancement compared to intravascular ultrasound in the evaluation of stent expansion in elective percutaneous coronary interventions

机译：与选择性血管内冠状动脉介入术中支架扩张的评估相比，支架内增强与血管内超声相比

获取原文
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Background Stent underexpansion is a major risk factor for in-stent restenosis and acute in-stent thrombosis 1 Intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) is one of the standards for detection of stent underexpansion (de Feyter et al. 1999; Mintz et al., 2001). StentBoost (SB) enhancement allows an improved angiographic visualization of the stent (Koolen et al., 2005). Aim of work Comparison of stent expansion by IVUS and SB enhancement and detection of value of SB to guide dilatation post stent deployment. Methodology IVUS, SB enhancement and QCA were done in 30 patients admitted for elective stenting procedures .We compared measurements of mean ±standard deviations of (Max SD, Min SD, Mean SD, stent symmetry index) using IVUS, SB and QCA after stent deployment and after postdilatation whenever necessary to optimize stent deployment. The Stent symmetry index was calculated [(maximum stent diameter minus minimum stent diameter) divided by maximum stent diameter]. Results The Max SD was (3.45 ± 0.62 vs 3.55 ± 0.56 vs 2.97 ± 0.59) by IVUS vs SB vs QCA respectively. Max SD was significantly higher by IVUS vs QCA (p .009) and between SB vs QCA (p .001) while there was nonsignificant difference between IVUS vs SB (p .53). The Min SD was (2.77 ± 0.53 vs 2.58 ± 0.56 vs 1.88 ± 0.60) by IVUS vs SB vs QCA respectively. Min SD was significantly higher by IVUS vs QCA (p .001) and between SB vs QCA (p .001) while there was nonsignificant difference between IVUS vs SB (p .07). The stent symmetry index was (0.24 ±0.09 vs 0.34 ± 0.09 vs 0.14 ±0.27) by IVUS vs SB vs QCA respectively. It was significantly higher by IVUS vs QCA (p .001) and between SB vs QCA (p .001) while there was nonsignificant difference between IVUS vs SB (p .32). SB was positively correlated with IVUS measurements of Max SD (p?<.0001 & r 0.74) and Min SD (p?<.0001 & r 0.68). QCA was positively correlated with IVUS measurements of Max SD correlation (p?<.0001 & r 0.69) and Min SD (p?<.0001 & r 0.63). QCA was positively correlated with SB measurements of Max SD (p?<.0001 & r 0.61) and Min SD (p .003 & r 0.49). Conclusions StentBoost enhancement has superior correlations for stent expansion measured by IVUS when compared with QCA. SB enhancement improved stent visualization and identification of stent underexpansion to guide stent postdilatation.
机译：背景技术支架扩张不足是支架内再狭窄和急性支架内血栓形成的主要危险因素1血管内超声（IVUS）是检测支架扩张不足的标准之一（de Feyter等，1999; Mintz等，2001）。 。 StentBoost（SB）增强可以改善支架的血管造影可视化效果（Koolen等，2005）。工作目的比较IVUS和SB增强支架扩张的情况，以及SB值的检测，以指导支架部署后的扩张。方法对30例行择期支架置入术的患者进行IVUS，SB增强和QCA研究。我们比较了在支架部署后使用IVUS，SB和QCA测量的平均值±标准偏差（最大SD，最小SD，平均SD，支架对称指数）在扩张后，必要时可以优化支架的部署。计算支架对称性指数[（最大支架直径减去最小支架直径）除以最大支架直径]。结果IVUS vs SB vs QCA的最大SD分别为（3.45±0.62 vs 3.55±0.56 vs 2.97±0.59）。 IVUS vs QCA（p .009）以及SB vs QCA（p .001）之间的最大SD显着更高，而IVUS vs SB之间（p .53）没有显着差异。 IVUS vs SB vs QCA的最小SD为（2.77±0.53 vs 2.58±0.56 vs 1.88±0.60）。 IVUS vs QCA（p .001）以及SB vs QCA（p .001）之间的Min SD显着更高，而IVUS vs SB之间（p .07）没有显着差异。 IVUS vs SB vs QCA的支架对称性指数分别为（0.24±0.09 vs 0.34±0.09 vs 0.14±0.27）。 IVUS vs QCA（p .001）以及SB vs QCA（p .001）显着高于IVUS vs SB（p .32）。 SB与IVSD的最大SD（p <.0001＆r 0.74）和最小SD（p <.0001＆r 0.68）的测量值呈正相关。 QCA与IVSD的最大SD相关性（p <.0001＆r 0.69）和最小SD（p <.0001＆r 0.63）呈正相关。 QCA与最大SD（p <.0001＆r 0.61）和最小SD（p .003＆r 0.49）的SB测量值呈正相关。结论与QCA相比，通过IVUS测量的StentBoost增强与支架扩张具有更好的相关性。 SB增强改善了支架的可视性，并识别了支架膨胀不足以指导支架后扩张。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号