4.5 Article

Comparison of Contrast Media and Low-Molecular-Weight Dextran for Frequency-Domain Optical Coherence Tomography

Journal

CIRCULATION JOURNAL
Volume 76, Issue 4, Pages 922-927

Publisher

JAPANESE CIRCULATION SOC
DOI: 10.1253/circj.CJ-11-1122

Keywords

Contrast media; Intracoronary imaging; Low-molecular-weight dextran L; Optical coherence tomography

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Although an intracoronary frequency-domain optical coherence tomography (FD-OCT) system overcomes several limitations of the time-domain OCT (TD-OCT) system, the former requires injection of contrast media for image acquisition. The increased total amount of contrast media for FD-OCT image acquisition may lead to the impairment of renal function. The safety and usefulness of the non-occlusion method with low-molecular-weight dextran L (LMD-L) via a guiding catheter for TD-OCT image acquisition have been reported previously. The aim of the present study was to compare the image quality and quantitative measurements between contrast media and LMD-L for FD-OCT image acquisition in coronary stented lesions. Methods and Results: Twenty-two patients with 25 coronary stented lesions were enrolled in this study. FD-OCT was performed with the continuous-flushing method via a guiding catheter. Both contrast media and LMD-L were infused at a rate of 4 ml/s by an autoinjector. With regard to image quality, the prevalence of clear image segments was comparable between contrast media and LMD-L (97.9% vs. 96.5%, P=0.90). Furthermore, excellent correlations were observed between both flushing solutions in terms of minimum lumen area, mean lumen area, and mean stent area. The total volumes of contrast media and of LMD-L needed for OCT image acquisition were similar. Conclusions: FD-OCT image acquisition with LMD-L has the potential to reduce the total amount of contrast media without loss of image quality. (Circ J 2012; 76: 922-927)

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available