Assessment of bioresorbable scaffold with a novel high‐definition 60 MHz IVUS imaging system: Comparison with 40‐MHz IVUS referenced to optical coherence tomography. Issue 5 (14th July 2017)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Okada, Kozo; Kitahara, Hideki; Mitsutake, Yoshiaki; Tanaka, Shigemitsu; Kimura, Takumi; Yock, Paul G.; Fitzgerald, Peter J.; Ikeno, Fumiaki; Honda, Yasuhiro
• Is Part Of: Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions. Volume 91:Issue 5(2018)
• Page Start: 874
• Page End: 883
• Publication Date: 2017-07-14
• Subjects: 60‐MHz High‐Definition IVUS -- bioresorbable scaffold -- intravascular imaging -- optical coherence tomography; Heart -- Diseases -- Diagnosis -- Periodicals; Cardiac catheterization -- Periodicals; 616.1207572
• DOI: 10.1002/ccd.27197
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1522-1946

Abstract

Abstract: Background: In vivo assessment of bioresorbable scaffold (BRS) is of growing clinical interest. The novel 60MHz high‐definition intravascular ultrasound (HD‐IVUS) has been developed to overcome the limitations of conventional 40 MHz IVUS. This study aimed to evaluate the performance and limitations of 60 MHz HD‐IVUS compared with 40 MHz IVUS with respect to polymeric‐strut visualization, quantitative and qualitative analysis, and feasibility of high‐speed pullback in the assessment of BRS. Methods and Results: In a bench‐test model, 361 struts were analyzed to evaluate the influence of ultrasound‐beam angles and proximity of adjacent struts on IVUS visualization of BRS struts. Various settings were created by deforming the BRS and positioning the transducer offcenter. In an in vivo swine coronary model, scaffold and lumen areas, degree of visible external elastic membrane, incomplete strut apposition, and strut fracture were evaluated in 59 matched cross‐sections obtained at conventional (0.5 mm/sec) and high speed (10 mm/sec) pullbacks. Both studies utilized optical coherence tomography (OCT) as reference. Overall, 60 MHz HD‐IVUS demonstrated significantly improved visualization of polymeric struts compared with 40 MHz IVUS (well‐visualized: 84.5% vs 62.3%, not visible: 4.4% vs 13.9%, respectively. P < 0.001), which was less affected by the beam angle and adjacent strut proximity. In the in vivo model, 60‐MHz HD‐IVUS showed better agreement of area measurements and strut abnormalities with OCT than 40 MHz IVUS. These findings were also confirmed on high‐speed pullback images of 60 MHz HD‐IVUS. Conclusion: As referenced to OCT, this study showed superiority of 60 MHz HD‐IVUS over 40 MHz IVUS in the assessment of BRS with feasibility of high‐speed pullback imaging.