Premium
Comparison of two different methods of quantitative coronary angiography in patients with acute coronary syndromes
Author(s) -
Sheynberg Boris V.,
Jang IkKyung,
Han Richard O.,
Sabatine Marc S.,
Brown David F.M.,
Dinsmore Robert
Publication year - 2002
Publication title -
catheterization and cardiovascular interventions
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.988
H-Index - 116
eISSN - 1522-726X
pISSN - 1522-1946
DOI - 10.1002/ccd.10156
Subject(s) - medicine , lesion , myocardial infarction , coronary angiography , stenosis , lumen (anatomy) , radiology , cardiology , angiography , nuclear medicine , surgery
The minimal cost algorithm (MCA) commonly used for quantitative coronary arteriography has limitations in definition of complex lesion morphology. A gradient field transform (GFT) algorithm has been designed for the better analysis of complex lesions. We compared MCA with GFT in angiograms of 125 patients in the Myocardial Infarction with Novastan and t‐PA (MINT) trial. Lesion border definition was rated as one (poor), two (good), or three (very good). While MCA‐ and GFT‐derived reference diameters (RDs) were similar, GFT yielded smaller minimal lumen diameter (MLD) than MCA by 0.22 ± 0.31 mm ( P < 0.01), and the difference between GFT‐ and MCA‐derived MLDs increased with decreasing MLD. Mean percent diameter stenosis (% DS) was 9.1% ± 11.1% greater by GFT ( P < 0.001). Lesion border definition in simple lesions was similar (not significantly different). However, in complex lesions GFT performed better (2.49 ± 0.61 vs. 2.11 ± 0.74; P < 0.05). Thus, GFT appears to improve analysis of complex lesions compared to MCA. GFTs role in angiographic trials and clinical practice deserves further study. Cathet Cardiovasc Intervent 2002;55:442–449. © 2002 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.