Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
SpringerLink
Log in

Optimal Angiographic Technique and Quantitative Analysis

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Textbook of Cardiovascular Intervention

  • 2679 Accesses

Abstract

The rapid rise of new percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) techniques and devices has necessitated standardized methods of evaluating coronary artery disease (CAD) severity and the effect of treatments on the natural history of the disease. Coronary angiography is the gold standard for evaluating coronary artery disease (CAD), but subjective evaluation of angiographically apparent CAD is limited by high levels of intra- and inter-observer variability. Thus, methods and algorithms for quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) have been developed in order to objectively quantify the extent of CAD. This chapter will discuss proper techniques for angiographic image acquisition, the current tools and practice of quantitative angiographic analysis, and common angiographic measurement parameters.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. DeRouen TA, Murray JA, Owen W. Variability in the analysis of coronary arteriograms. Circulation. 1977;55(2):324–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Katritsis D, Lythall DA, Cooper IC, Crowther A, Webb-Peploe MM. Assessment of coronary angioplasty: comparison of visual assessment, hand-held caliper measurement and automated digital quantitation. Cathet Cardiovasc Diagn. 1988;15(4):237–42.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Fisher LD, Judkins MP, Lesperance J, et al. Reproducibility of coronary arteriographic reading in the coronary artery surgery study (CASS). Cathet Cardiovasc Diagn. 1982;8(6):565–75.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Ryan TJ, Faxon DP, Gunnar RM, et al. Guidelines for percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty. A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Assessment of Diagnostic and Therapeutic Cardiovascular Procedures (Subcommittee on Percutaneous Transluminal Coronary Angioplasty). Circulation. 1988;78(2):486–502.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Smith S, Feldman T, Hirshfeld J, et al. ACC/AHA/SCAI 2005 guideline update for percutaneous coronary intervention–summary article: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (ACC/AHA/SCAI Writing Committee to Update the 2001 Guidelines for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention). Circulation. 2006;113(1):156–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Fleming RM, Kirkeeide RL, Smalling RW, Gould KL. Patterns in visual interpretation of coronary arteriograms as detected by quantitative coronary arteriography. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1991;18(4):945–51.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Bertrand ME, Lablanche JM, Bauters C, Leroy F, Mac Fadden E. Discordant results of visual and quantitative estimates of stenosis severity before and after coronary angioplasty. Cathet Cardiovasc Diagn. 1993;28(1):1–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Desmet W, Willems J, Van Lierde J, Piessens J. Discrepancy between visual estimation and computer-assisted measurement of lesion severity before and after coronary angioplasty. Cathet Cardiovasc Diagn. 1994;31(3):192–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Kalbfleisch SJ, McGillem MJ, Pinto IM, Kavanaugh KM, DeBoe SF, Mancini GB. Comparison of automated quantitative coronary angiography with caliper measurements of percent diameter stenosis. Am J Cardiol. 1990;65(18):1181–4.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Reiber JH, Serruys PW, Kooijman CJ, et al. Assessment of short-, medium-, and long-term variations in arterial dimensions from computer-assisted quantitation of coronary cineangiograms. Circulation. 1985;71(2):280–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Mancini GB, Simon SB, McGillem MJ, LeFree MT, Friedman HZ, Vogel RA. Automated quantitative coronary arteriography: morphologic and physiologic validation in vivo of a rapid digital angiographic method. Circulation. 1987;75(2):452–60.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Spears JR, Sandor T, Als AV, et al. Computerized image analysis for quantitative measurement of vessel diameter from cineangiograms. Circulation. 1983;68(2):453–61.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Herrington DM, Siebes M, Walford GD. Sources of error in quantitative coronary angiography. Cathet Cardiovasc Diagn. 1993;29(4):314–21.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Hausleiter J, Jost S, Nolte CW, et al. Comparative in-vitro validation of eight first- and second-generation quantitative coronary angiography systems. Coron Artery Dis. 1997;8(2):83–90.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Van Herck PL, Gavit L, Gorissen P, et al. Quantitative coronary arteriography on digital flat-panel system. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2004;63(2):192–200.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. van der Zwet PM, Reiber JH. 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(1):216–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Gradaus R, Mathies K, Breithardt G, Bocker D. Clinical assessment of a new real time 3D quantitative coronary angiography system: evaluation in stented vessel segments. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2006;68(1):44–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Ramcharitar S, Daeman J, Patterson M, et al. First direct in vivo comparison of two commercially available three-dimensional quantitative coronary angiography systems. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2008;71(1):44–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Dvir D, Marom H, Guetta V, Kornowski R. Three-dimensional coronary reconstruction from routine single-plane coronary angiograms: in vivo quantitative validation. Int J Cardiovasc Intervent. 2005;7(3):141–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Agostoni P, Biondi-Zoccai G, Van Langenhove G, et al. Comparison of assessment of native coronary arteries by standard versus three-dimensional coronary angiography. Am J Cardiol. 2008;102(3):272–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Schuurbiers JC, Lopez NG, Ligthart J, et al. In vivo validation of CAAS QCA-3D coronary reconstruction using fusion of angiography and intravascular ultrasound (ANGUS). Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2009;73(5):620–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Tsuchida K, van der Giessen WJ, Patterson M, et al. In vivo validation of a novel three-dimensional quantitative coronary angiography system (CardiOp-B): comparison with a conventional two-dimensional system (CAAS II) and with special reference to optical coherence tomography. EuroIntervention. 2007;3(1):100–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Meerkin D, Marom H, Cohen-Biton O, Einav S. Three-dimensional vessel analyses provide more accurate length estimations than the gold standard QCA. J Interv Cardiol. 2010;23(2):152–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Wellnhofer E, Wahle A, Mugaragu I, Gross J, Oswald H, Fleck E. Validation of an accurate method for three-dimensional reconstruction and quantitative assessment of volumes, lengths and diameters of coronary vascular branches and segments from biplane angiographic projections. Int J Card Imaging. 1999;15(5):339–53. discussion 355–336.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Tu S, Koning G, Jukema W, Reiber JH. Assessment of obstruction length and optimal viewing angle from biplane X-ray angiograms. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2010;26(1):5–17.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Glagov S, Weisenberg E, Zarins CK, Stankunavicius R, Kolettis GJ. Compensatory enlargement of human atherosclerotic coronary arteries. N Engl J Med. 1987;316(22):1371–5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Stiel GM, Stiel LS, Schofer J, Donath K, Mathey DG. Impact of compensatory enlargement of atherosclerotic coronary arteries on angiographic assessment of coronary artery disease. Circulation. 1989;80(6):1603–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Krone R, Shaw R, Klein L, et al. Evaluation of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association and the Society for Coronary Angiography and Interventions lesion classification system in the current “stent era” of coronary interventions (from the ACC-National Cardiovascular Data Registry). Am J Cardiol. 2003;92(4):389–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Singh M, Rihal CS, Lennon RJ, Garratt KN, Holmes DR. Comparison of Mayo Clinic risk score and American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association lesion classification in the prediction of adverse cardiovascular outcome following percutaneous coronary interventions. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004;44:357–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Popma JJ, Leon MB, Moses JW, et al. Quantitative assessment of angiographic restenosis after sirolimus-eluting stent implantation in native coronary arteries. Circulation. 2004;110:3773–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Gobeil F, Lefevre T, Guyon P, et al. Stenting of bifurcation lesions using the Bestent: a prospective dual-center study. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2002;55:427–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Medina A, de Lezo J. A new classification of coronary bifurcation lesions. Rev Esp Cardiol. 2006;59(2):183–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Lefevre T, Louvard Y, Morice MC, et al. Stenting of bifurcation lesions: classification, treatments, and results. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2000;49:274–83.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Seiler C. The human coronary collateral circulation. Heart (England). 2003;89:1352–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Gibson CM, Cannon CP, Daley WL, et al. TIMI frame count: a quantitative method of assessing coronary artery flow. Circulation. 1996;93(5):879–88.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Stone GW, Brodie BR, Griffin JJ, et al. Prospective, multicenter study of the safety and feasibility of primary stenting in acute myocardial infarction: in-hospital and 30-day results of the PAMI stent pilot trial. Primary Angioplasty in Myocardial Infarction Stent Pilot Trial Investigators. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1998;31(1):23–30.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. van ‘t Hof AW, Liem A, Suryapranata H, Hoorntje JC, de Boer MJ, Zijlstra F. Angiographic assessment of myocardial reperfusion in patients treated with primary angioplasty for acute myocardial infarction: myocardial blush grade. Zwolle Myocardial Infarction Study Group. Circulation. 1998;97(23)):2302–6.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Stone GW, Peterson MA, Lansky AJ, Dangas G, Mehran R, Leon MB. Impact of normalized myocardial perfusion after successful angioplasty in acute myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2002;39(4):591–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Fasseas P, Orford JL, Panetta CJ, et al. Incidence, correlates, management, and clinical outcome of coronary perforation: analysis of 16,298 procedures. Am Heart J. 2004;147:140–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Dippel EJ, Kereiakes DJ, Tramuta DA, et al. Coronary perforation during percutaneous coronary intervention in the era of abciximab platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa blockade: an algorithm for percutaneous management. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2001;52:279–86.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Javaid A, Buch AN, Satler LF, et al. Management and outcomes of coronary artery perforation during percutaneous coronary intervention. Am J Cardiol. 2006;98:911–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Klein LW. Coronary artery perforation during interventional procedures. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2006;68:713–17.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Stankovic G, Orlic D, Corvaja N, et al. Incidence, predictors, in-hospital, and late outcomes of coronary artery perforations. Am J Cardiol. 2004;93:213–16.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Ellis SG, Ajluni S, Arnold AZ, et al. Increased coronary perforation in the new device era. Incidence, classification, management, and outcome. Circulation. 1994;90(6):p2725–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Lansky AJ, Yang YM, Khan Y, et al. Treatment of coronary artery perforations complicating percutaneous coronary intervention with a polytetrafluoroethylene-covered stent graft. Am J Cardiol. 2006;98:370–4.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Ellis SG, Popma JJ, Lasala JM, et al. Relationship between angiographic late loss and target lesion revascularization after coronary stent implantation: analysis from the TAXUS-IV trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005;45:1193–200.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Pocock SJ, Lansky AJ, Mehran R, et al. Angiographic surrogate end points in drug-eluting stent trials: a systematic evaluation based on individual patient data from 11 randomized, controlled trials. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008;51(1):23–32. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2007.07.084

    Google Scholar 

  48. Mauri L, Orav EJ, Candia SC, Cutlip DE, Kuntz RE. Robustness of late lumen loss in discriminating drug-eluting stents across variable observational and randomized trials. Circulation. 2005;112:2833–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Pocock SJ, Lansky AJ, Mehran R, et al. Angiographic surrogate end points in drug-eluting stent trials: a systematic evaluation based on individual patient data from 11 randomized, controlled trials. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008;51(1):23–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Mercado N, Boersma E, Wijns W, et al. Clinical and quantitative coronary angiographic predictors of coronary restenosis: a comparative analysis from the balloon-to-stent era. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2001;38(3):645–52.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Dauerman HL, Higgins PJ, Sparano AM, et al. Mechanical debulking versus balloon angioplasty for the treatment of true bifurcation lesions. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1998;32(7):1845–52.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Kandzari DE, Tcheng JE, Gersh BJ, et al. Relationship between infarct artery location, epicardial flow, and myocardial perfusion after primary percutaneous revascularization in acute myocardial infarction. Am Heart J. 2006;151(6):1288–95.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Califf RM, Phillips 3rd HR, Hindman MC, Mark DB, Lee KL, Behar VS, Johnson RA, Pryor DB, Rosati RA, Wagner GS, et al. Prognostic value of a coronary artery jeopardy score. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1985;5:1055–63.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Alderman EL, Stadius M. The angiographic definitions of the Bypass Angioplasty Revascularization Investigation. Coron Artery Dis. 1992;3:1189–207.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Chen SL, Chen JP, Mintz G, Xu B, Kan J, Ye F, Zhang J, Sun X, Xu Y, Jiang Q, Zhang A, Stone GW. Comparison between the ners (new risk stratification) score and the syntax (synergy between percutaneous coronary intervention with taxus and cardiac surgery) score in outcome prediction for unprotected left main stenting. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2010;3:632–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Garg S, Sarno G, Garcia-Garcia HM, Girasis C, Wykrzykowska J, Dawkins KD, Serruys PW. A new tool for the risk stratification of patients with complex coronary artery disease: the clinical syntax score. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2010;3:317–26.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Graham MM, Faris PD, Ghali WA, Galbraith PD, Norris CM, Badry JT, Mitchell LB, Curtis MJ, Knudtson ML. Validation of three myocardial jeopardy scores in a population-based cardiac catheterization cohort. Am Heart J. 2001;142:254–61.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Hamburger JN, Walsh SJ, Khurana R, Ding L, Gao M, Humphries KH, Carere R, Fung AY, Mildenberger RR, Simkus GJ, Webb JG, Buller CE. Percutaneous coronary intervention and 30-day mortality: the British Columbia PCI risk score. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2009;74:377–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Lansky AJ, Goto K, Cristea E, Fahy M, Parise H, Feit F, Ohman EM, White HD, Alexander KP, Bertrand ME, Desmet W, Hamon M, Mehran R, Moses J, Leon M, Stone GW. Clinical and angiographic predictors of short- and long-term ischemic events in acute coronary syndromes: results from the acute catheterization and urgent intervention triage strategy (acuity) trial. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2010;3:308–16.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Sianos G, Morel MA, Kappetein AP, Morice MC, Colombo A, Dawkins K, van den Brand M, Van Dyck N, Russell ME, Mohr FW, Serruys PW. The syntax score: an angiographic tool grading the complexity of coronary artery disease. EuroIntervention. 2005;1:219–27.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Yale Cardiovascular Research Group, Valve Program, Yale University School of Medicine, One Church Street, Suite 330, New Haven, CT, 06510, USA

    Alexandra J. Lansky MD

  2. Department of Internal Medicine (Division of Cardiology) and the Yale Cardiovascular Research Group, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA

    Cody Pietras BA

  3. Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Yale New Haven Hospital, 333 Cedar St., New Haven, CT, 06520, USA

    Kamran Haleem MD

  4. Department of Internal Medicine, Cardiology Section, Yale University School of Medicine, 333 Cedar St., New Haven, CT, 06520, USA

    Vivian Ng MD

Authors
  1. Alexandra J. Lansky MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Cody Pietras BA
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kamran Haleem MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Vivian Ng MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alexandra J. Lansky MD .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Medicine, Cardiology Section, Director, Cardiovascular Catheterization and Intervention, Yale New Haven Hospital, Director, Invasive Cardiology and Vascular Medicine,, New Haven, Connecticut, USA

    Craig A. Thompson

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer-Verlag London

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Lansky, A.J., Pietras, C., Haleem, K., Ng, V. (2014). Optimal Angiographic Technique and Quantitative Analysis. In: Thompson, C. (eds) Textbook of Cardiovascular Intervention. Springer, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-4528-8_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-4528-8_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, London

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4471-4527-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4471-4528-8

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation