Feasibility and safety of frequency-domain optical coherence tomography for coronary artery evaluation: a single-center study

  • Tuomas Lehtinen
  • Wail Nammas
  • Juhani K. E. Airaksinen
  • Pasi P. Karjalainen
Original Paper
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

We assessed the feasibility and safety of frequency-domain optical coherence tomography (FD–OCT) in a variety of indications. We conducted a retrospective analysis of all FD–OCT examinations performed for research and clinical indications, including stable angina, acute coronary syndromes, diagnostic procedures and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), at the Satakunta Central Hospital (Pori, Finland) between August 12th 2009 and February 9th 2011. All pullbacks were screened for image quality. Data on complications and clinical implications of examinations was obtained from patient records. The mean age of the patients was 65.9 ± 10.9 years (81.7 % males). A total of 230 examinations were performed on 210 patients; 523 pullbacks were eventually attempted (519 successful). On average, 2.3 ± 1.1 pullbacks were performed, and 1.1 ± 0.4 vessels were scanned per examination. PCI was performed in 44.3 % of examinations. Radial access was used in 70.3 % of cases. Examination was successful in 202 (87.8 %) examinations. One patient died of heart failure later after PCI for acute myocardial infarction. No cases of major bleeding, myocardial infarction, contrast-induced nephropathy, or pericardial tamponade were encountered. Chest pain occurred in 10.9 % of examinations, minor bleeding in 4.8 %, and myocardial ischemia in 2.6 %. Femoral access was associated with fewer blood and decentration artefacts and a trend towards better image quality when compared to radial access, with no difference in complications. After the first 50 examinations, there appeared to be fewer artefacts in the subsequent examinations. The current study demonstrated that FD–OCT is feasible, with infrequent complications.

Keywords

Optical coherence tomography Frequency-domain Safety Feasibility 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by grants (T. L.) from Aarne Koskelo Foundation, Helsinki, Finland and Paavo Nurmi Foundation, Helsinki, Finland.

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflict of interest to report.

References

  1. 1.
    Lowe HC, Narula J, Fujimoto JG, Jang I (2011) Intracoronary optical diagnostics: current status, limitations, and potential. J Am Coll Cardiol Interv 4:1257–1270Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Tearney GJ, Regar E, Akasaka T et al (2012) Consensus standards for acquisition, measurement, and reporting of intravascular optical coherence tomography studies. A report from the international working group for intravascular optical coherence tomography standardization and validation. J Am Coll Cardiol 59:1058–1072PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Karjalainen PP, Nammas W (2012) Optical coherence tomography: on the way to decipher the ‘Rosetta stone’. Int J Cardiol 159:79–81PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Yoon JH, Di Vito L, Moses JW et al (2012) Feasibility and safety of the second-generation, frequency domain optical coherence tomography (FD–OCT): a multicenter study. J Invasive Cardiol 24:206–209PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Imola F, Mallus MT, Ramazzotti V et al (2010) Safety and feasibility of frequency domain optical coherence tomography to guide decision making in percutaneous coronary intervention. EuroIntervention 6:575–581PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Prati F, Cera M, Ramazzotti V, Imola F, Giudice R, Albertucci M (2007) Safety and feasibility of a new non-occlusive technique for facilitated intracoronary optical coherence tomography (OCT) acquisition in various clinical and anatomical scenarios. Eurointervention 3:365–370PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Barlis P, Gonzalo N, Di Mario C et al (2009) A multicentre evaluation of the safety of intracoronary optical coherence tomography. Eurointervention 5:90–95PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Motreff P, Levesque S, Souteyrand G et al (2010) High-resolution coronary imaging by optical coherence tomography: feasibility, pitfalls and artefact analysis. Arch Cardiovasc Dis 103:215–226PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Parodi G, Maehara A, Giuliani G et al (2010) Optical coherence tomography in unprotected left main coronary artery stenting. EuroIntervention 6:94–99PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kubo T, Imanishi T, Takarada S et al (2007) Assessment of culprit lesion morphology in acute myocardial infarction: ability of optical coherence tomography compared with intravascular ultrasound and coronary angioscopy. J Am Coll Cardiol 50:933–939PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Stefano GT, Bezerra HG, Attizzani G et al (2011) Utilization of frequency domain optical coherence tomography and fractional flow reserve to assess intermediate coronary artery stenoses: conciliating anatomic and physiologic information. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 27:299–308PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Spencer FA, Moscucci M, Granger CB, GRACE Investigators et al (2007) Does comorbidity account for the excess mortality in patients with major bleeding in acute myocardial infarction? Circulation 116:2793–2801PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Takarada S, Imanishi T, Liu Y et al (2010) Advantage of next generation frequency-domain optical coherence tomography compared with conventional time-domain system in the assessment of coronary lesion. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 75:202–206PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tuomas Lehtinen
    • 1
    • 2
  • Wail Nammas
    • 1
  • Juhani K. E. Airaksinen
    • 2
  • Pasi P. Karjalainen
    • 1
  1. 1.Heart CenterSatakunta Central HospitalPoriFinland
  2. 2.Department of MedicineTurku University HospitalTurkuFinland

Personalised recommendations