State of the Art in Quantitative Coronary Arteriography as of 1996

  • Johan H. C. Reiber
  • Lars R. Schiemanck
  • Pieter M. J. Van Der Zwet
  • Bob Goedhart
  • Gerhard Koning
  • Martin Lammertsma
  • Martijn Danse
  • Jan J. Gerbrands
  • Martin J. Schalij
  • Albert V. G. Bruschke
Chapter
Part of the Developments in Cardiovascular Medicine book series (DICM, volume 186)

Summary

In this chapter the important developments which have led to the third generation in quantitative coronary arteriographic (QCA) analytical software are presented, as well as current developments in the fields of image compression and storage. The conventional QCA approaches with automated contour detection techniques based on Minimum Cost contour detection Algorithms (MCA) have been well established and validated. However, further improvements in the calculations of the diameter and reference diameter functions were needed, especially for complex morphology and for stent applications. The development of the Gradient Field Transform (GFTR) approach for the quantitation of complex lesions represents a major step forward in QCA. With the advent of the cineless catheterization laboratory, the issue of image compression has become of major relevance. Phantom studies with lossy JPEG image compression at 5122 matrix size demonstrate that the compression factor (CF) should not exceed the level of 10. On the other hand, if JPEG and LOT lossy compression schemes (CF’s of 5,8 and 12) are applied to routinely acquired coronary angiographic image results, QCA measurements demonstrate that all three compression factors lead to significantly increased random differences in the measurements. These results suggest that even the JPEG and LOT compression ratio of 5 is not acceptable for QCA. Finally, an extensive QCA study has demonstrated that S-VHS video tape is unacceptable for QCA and should be excluded from quantitative angiographic clinical trials.

Keywords

Image Compression Vessel Segment Compression Scheme Compression Factor Reference Diameter 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Brown BG, Bolson E, Frimer M, Dodge HT. Quantitative coronary arteriography: estimation of dimensions, hemodynamic resistance, and atheroma mass of coronary artery lesions using the arteriogram and digital computation. Circulation 1977;55:329–37.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Reiber JHC, Booman F, Tan HS et al. A cardiac image analysis system. Objective quantitative processing of angiocardiograms. Comput Cardiol 1978;239–42.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Reiber JHC, Serruys PW, editors. Advances in quantitative coronary arteriography. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1993.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jukema JW, Bruschke AVG, van Boven AJ et al. Effects of lipid lowering by pravastatin on progression and regression of coronary artery disease in symptomatic men with normal to moderately elevated serum cholesterol levels. The Regression Growth Evaluation Statin Study (REGRESS). Circulation 1995;91:2528–40.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bruschke AVG, Jukema JW, van Boven AJ, Bai ET, Reiber JHC, Zwinderman AH. Angiographic endpoints in progression trials. Submitted.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Waksman R, Weintraub WS, Ghazzal ZMB et al. Directional Coronary Atherectomy (DCA): is much bigger much better? [abstract] Circulation 1995; 92(Suppl. I):I–329.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Reiber JHC, von Land CD, Koning G et al. Comparison of accuracy and precision of quantitative coronary arterial analysis between cinefilm and digital systems. In: Reiber JHC, Serruys PW, editors. Progress in quantitative coronary arteriography. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1994:67–85.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Van der Zwet PMJ, von Land CD, Loois G, Gerbrands JJ, Reiber JHC. An online system for the quantitative analysis of coronary arterial segments. Comput Cardiol 1990:157–60.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Reiber JHC, Koning G, von Land CD, van der Zwet PMJ. Why and how should QCA systems be validated In: Reiber JHC, Serruys PW, editors. Progress in quantitative coronary arteriography. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1994:33–48.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Colombo A, Hall P, Nakamura S et al. Intracoronary stenting without anticoagulation accomplished with intravascular ultrasound guidance. Circulation 1995;91:1676–88.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Reimers B, Di Francesco L, Di Mario C et al. A new approach to the assessment of residual stenosis after stent implantation with quantitative angiography [abstract]. Submitted to ESC 1996.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Van der Zwet PMJ, Reiber JHC. A new approach for the quantification of complex lesion morphology: the gradient field transform; basic principles and validation results. J Am Coll Cardiol 1994;24:216–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kalbfleisch SJ, McGillem MJ, Simon SB, DeBoe SF, Pinto IMF, Mancini GBJ. Automated quantitation of indexes of coronary lesion complexity. Comparison between patients with stable and unstable angina. Circulation 1990;82:439–47.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Desmet W, De Scheerder I, Beatt K, Huehns T, Piessens J. In vivo comparison of different quantitative edge detection systems used for measuring coronary arterial diameters. Cathet Cardiovasc Diagn 1995;34:72–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Reiber JHC Editorial Comment. Cathet Cardiovasc Diagn 1995;34:81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hausleiter J, Nolte CWT, Jost W, Wiese B, Sturm M, Lichtlen PR. Comparison of different quantitative coronary analysis systems: ARTREK, CAAS, and CMS. Cathet Cardiovasc Diagn 1996;37:14–22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Solzbach U, Wollschläger H, Zeiher A, Just H. Optical distortion due to geomagnetism in quantitative angiography. Comput Cardiol 1988:355–7.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Van der Zwet PMJ, Meyer DJH, Reiber JHC. Automated and accurate assessment of the distribution, magnitude and direction of pincushion distortion in angiographic images. Invest Radiol 1995;30:204–13.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cardiac angiography without cinefilm: erecting a "Tower of Babel" in the cardiac catheterization laboratory. American College of Cardiology Cardiac Catheterization Committee. J Am Coll Cardiol 1994;24:834–7.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    American College of Cardiology, American College of Radiology and industry develop standard for digital transfer of angiographic images. ACC/ACR/NEMA Ad Hoc Group. J Am Coll Cardiol 1995;25:800–2.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Koning G, Baretta P, Zwart P, Reiber JHC. Effect of lossy image compression on QCA results [abstract]. Circulation 1995;82(Suppl.1):1–22.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Breeuwer M, Heusdens R, Klein Gunnewiek R, Zwart P, Haas HPA. Data compression of x-ray cardio-angiographic image series. Int J Card Imaging 1995; 11 (Suppl. 3): 179–86.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Simon R, Brennecke R, Heiss O, Meier B, Reiber H, Zeelenberg C. Report of the ESC Task Force on Digital Imaging in Cardiology. Recommendations for digital imaging in angiocardiography. Eur Heart J 1994;15:1332–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Reiber JHC, Koning G, van der Zwet PMJ, Schiemanck L. Inaccuracy of quantitative coronary arteriography when analyzed from S-VHS videotape. Cathet Cardiovasc Diagn 1996;37:32–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Johan H. C. Reiber
  • Lars R. Schiemanck
  • Pieter M. J. Van Der Zwet
  • Bob Goedhart
  • Gerhard Koning
  • Martin Lammertsma
  • Martijn Danse
  • Jan J. Gerbrands
  • Martin J. Schalij
  • Albert V. G. Bruschke

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations