FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W4296477258> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W4296477258 abstract "HomeCirculation: Cardiovascular InterventionsVol. 15, No. 9The Bigger the Highway, the Less Likely the Traffic Jam No AccessEditorialRequest AccessFull TextAboutView Full TextView PDFView EPUBSections ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload citationsTrack citationsPermissions ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InMendeleyReddit Jump toNo AccessEditorialRequest AccessFull TextThe Bigger the Highway, the Less Likely the Traffic Jam Ziad A. Ali and Andrew S.P. Sharp Ziad A. AliZiad A. Ali https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2482-3197 St. Francis Hospital, Roslyn, NY (Z.A.A.). Cardiovascular Research Foundation, New York, NY (Z.A.A.). Search for more papers by this author and Andrew S.P. SharpAndrew S.P. Sharp Correspondence to: Andrew S.P. Sharp, MD, Department of Cardiology, University Hospital of Wales, Cardiff, United Kingdom CF14 4XW. Email E-mail Address: [email protected] https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9085-8881 University Hospital of Wales, Cardiff, United Kingdom (A.S.P.S.). Search for more papers by this author Originally published20 Sep 2022https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.122.012368Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions. 2022;15This article is a commentary on the followingDefinition of Optimal Optical Coherence Tomography–Based Stent Expansion Criteria: In-Stent Minimum Lumen Area Versus Residual Stent UnderexpansionFootnotesThe opinions expressed in this article are not necessarily those of the editors or of the American Heart Association.For Disclosures, see page 751.Correspondence to: Andrew S.P. Sharp, MD, Department of Cardiology, University Hospital of Wales, Cardiff, United Kingdom CF14 4XW. Email andrew.[email protected].nhs.ukReferences1. Fujimura T, Matsumura M, Witzenbichler B, Metzger DC, Rinaldi MJ, Duffy PL, Weisz G, Stuckey TD, Ali ZA, Zhou Z, et al. Stent expansion indexes to predict clinical outcomes: an IVUS substudy from ADAPT-DES.JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2021; 14:1639–1650. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2021.05.019CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar2. Zhang J, Gao X, Kan J, Ge Z, Han L, Lu S, Tian N, Lin S, Lu Q, Wu X, et al. Intravascular ultrasound versus angiography-guided drug-eluting stent implantation: the ULTIMATE trial.J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018; 72:3126–3137. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2018.09.013CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar3. Hong SJ, Kim BK, Shin DH, Nam CM, Kim JS, Ko YG, Choi D, Kang TS, Kang WC, Her AY, et al; IVUS-XPL Investigators.Effect of intravascular ultrasound-guided vs angiography-guided everolimus-eluting stent implantation: the IVUS-XPL randomized clinical trial.JAMA. 2015; 314:2155–2163. doi: 10.1001/jama.2015.15454CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar4. Ali ZA, Maehara A, Généreux P, Shlofmitz RA, Fabbiocchi F, Nazif TM, Guagliumi G, Meraj PM, Alfonso F, Samady H, et al; ILUMIEN III: OPTIMIZE PCI Investigators.Optical coherence tomography compared with intravascular ultrasound and with angiography to guide coronary stent implantation (ILUMIEN III: OPTIMIZE PCI): a randomised controlled trial.Lancet. 2016; 388:2618–2628. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)31922-5CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar5. Ali Z, Landmesser U, Karimi Galougahi K, Maehara A, Matsumura M, Shlofmitz RA, Guagliumi G, Price MJ, Hill JM, Akasaka T, et al. Optical coherence tomography-guided coronary stent implantation compared to angiography: a multicentre randomised trial in PCI - design and rationale of ILUMIEN IV: OPTIMAL PCI.EuroIntervention. 2021; 16:1092–1099. doi: 10.4244/EIJ-D-20-00501CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar6. Romagnoli E, Ramazzotti V, Burzotta F, Gatto L, Marco V, Paoletti G, Biondi-Zoccai G, Alfonso F, Crea F, Trani C, et al; CLI-OPCI Project Investigators. Definition of optimal optical coherence tomography–based stent expansion criteria: in-stent minimum lumen area versus residual stent underexpansion.Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2022; 15:740–748. doi: 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.121.011496LinkGoogle Scholar7. Konigstein M, Madhavan MV, Ben-Yehuda O, Rahim HM, Srdanovic I, Gkargkoulas F, Mehdipoor G, Shlofmitz E, Maehara A, Redfors B, et al. Incidence and predictors of target lesion failure in patients undergoing contemporary DES implantation-Individual patient data pooled analysis from 6 randomized controlled trials.Am Heart J. 2019; 213:105–111. doi: 10.1016/j.ahj.2019.03.011CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar8. Kim HY, Lim HS, Doh JH, Nam CW, Shin ES, Koo BK, Yoon MH, Tahk SJ, Kang DK, Song YB, et al. Physiological severity of coronary artery stenosis depends on the amount of myocardial mass subtended by the coronary artery.JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2016; 9:1548–1560. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2016.04.008CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar8a. Meneveau N, Souteyrand G, Motreff P, Caussin C, Amabile N, Ohlmann P, Morel O, Lefrançois Y, Descotes-Genon V, Silvain J, et al. Optical coherence tomography to optimize results of percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome: results of the multicenter, randomized DOCTORS study (Does Optical Coherence Tomography Optimize Results of Stenting).Circulation. 2016; 134:906–917.LinkGoogle Scholar9. Räber L, Mintz GS, Koskinas KC, Johnson TW, Holm NR, Onuma Y, Radu MD, Joner M, Yu B, Jia H, et al; ESC Scientific Document Group.Clinical use of intracoronary imaging. Part 1: guidance and optimization of coronary interventions. An expert consensus document of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions.Eur Heart J. 2018; 39:3281–3300. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehy285CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar10. Kubo T, Akasaka T, Shite J, Suzuki T, Uemura S, Yu B, Kozuma K, Kitabata H, Shinke T, Habara M, et al. OCT compared with IVUS in a coronary lesion assessment: the OPUS-CLASS study.JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2013; 6:1095–1104. doi: 10.1016/j.jcmg.2013.04.014CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar11. Habara M, Nasu K, Terashima M, Kaneda H, Yokota D, Ko E, Ito T, Kurita T, Tanaka N, Kimura M, et al. Impact of frequency-domain optical coherence tomography guidance for optimal coronary stent implantation in comparison with intravascular ultrasound guidance.Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2012; 5:193–201. doi: 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.111.965111LinkGoogle Scholar12. Maehara A, Ben-Yehuda O, Ali Z, Wijns W, Bezerra HG, Shite J, Généreux P, Nichols M, Jenkins P, Witzenbichler B, et al. Comparison of stent expansion guided by optical coherence tomography versus intravascular ultrasound: the ILUMIEN II study (Observational Study of Optical Coherence Tomography [OCT] in Patients Undergoing Fractional Flow Reserve [FFR] and Percutaneous Coronary Intervention).JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2015; 8:1704–1714. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2015.07.024CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar13. Garcia-Guimaraes M, Antuña P, De la Cuerda F, Maruri-Sanchez R, Cuesta J, Bastante T, Rivero F, Alfonso F. High-definition IVUS versus OCT to assess coronary artery disease and results of stent implantation.JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2020; 13(2 Pt 1):519–521. doi: 10.1016/j.jcmg.2019.08.019CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar14. Ali ZA, Karimi Galougahi K, Mintz GS, Maehara A, Shlofmitz RA, Mattesini A. Intracoronary optical coherence tomography: state of the art and future directions.EuroIntervention. 2021; 17:e105–e123. doi: 10.4244/EIJ-D-21-00089CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar15. Prati F, Romagnoli E, Burzotta F, Limbruno U, Gatto L, La Manna A, Versaci F, Marco V, Di Vito L, Imola F, et al. Clinical impact of OCT findings during PCI: the CLI-OPCI II study.JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2015; 8:1297–1305. doi: 10.1016/j.jcmg.2015.08.013CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar16. Kim BK, Shin DH, Hong MK, Park HS, Rha SW, Mintz GS, Kim JS, Kim JS, Lee SJ, Kim HY, et al; Clinical impact of intravascular ultrasound-guided chronic total occlusion intervention with zotarolimus-eluting versus biolimus-eluting stent implantation: randomized study.Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2015; 8:e002592.LinkGoogle Scholar17. Schiele F, Meneveau N, Vuillemenot A, Zhang DDGupta S, Mercier M, Danchin N, Bertrand B, Bassand JP. Impact of intravascular ultrasound guidance in stent deployment on 6-month restenosis rate: a multicenter, randomized study comparing two strategies--with and without intravascular ultrasound guidance. RESIST Study Group. REStenosis after Ivus guided STenting.J Am Coll Cardiol. 1998; 32:320–328.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar18. Oemrawsingh PV, Mintz GS, Schalij MJ, Zwinderman AH, Jukema JW, van der Wall EE; TULIP Study. Thrombocyte activity evaluation and effects of ultrasound guidance in long intracoronary stent placement. Intravascular ultrasound guidance improves angiographic and clinical outcome of stent implantation for long coronary artery stenoses: final results of a randomized comparison with angiographic guidance (TULIP Study).Circulation. 2003; 107:62–67.LinkGoogle Scholar19. Tian NL, Gami SK, Ye F, Zhang JJ, Liu ZZ, Lin S, Ge Z, Shan SJ, You W, Chen L, et al. Angiographic and clinical comparisons of intravascular ultrasound- versus angiography-guided drug-eluting stent implantation for patients with chronic total occlusion lesions: two-year results from a randomised AIR-CTO study.EuroIntervention. 2015; 10:1409–1417.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar20. Mueller C, Mc Hodgson JB, Brutsche M, Perruchoud AP, Marsch S, Hunziker P, Buettner HJ. Impact of intracoronary ultrasound guidance on long-term outcome of percutaneous coronary interventions in diabetics–insights from the randomized SIPS trial.Swiss Med Wkly. 2002; 132:279–284.MedlineGoogle Scholar21. Mudra H, di Mario C, de Jaegere P, Figulla HR, Macaya C, Zahn R, Wennerblom B, Rutsch W, Voudris V, Regar E, et al; OPTICUS (OPTimization with ICUS to reduce stent restenosis) Study Investigators. Randomized comparison of coronary stent implantation under ultrasound or angiographic guidance to reduce stent restenosis (OPTICUS Study).Circulation. 2001; 104:1343–1349.LinkGoogle Scholar22. Russo RJ, Silva PD, Teirstein PS, Attubato MJ, Davidson CJ, DeFranco AC, Fitzgerald PJ, Goldberg SL, Hermiller JB, Leon MB, et al; AVID Investigators. A randomized controlled trial of angiography versus intravascular ultrasound-directed bare-metal coronary stent placement (the AVID Trial).Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2009; 2:113–123.LinkGoogle Scholar23. Shiono Y, Kitabata H, Kubo T, Masuno T, Ohta S, Ozaki Y, Sougawa H, Orii M, Shimamura K, Ishibashi K, et al. Optical coherence tomography-derived anatomical criteria for functionally significant coronary stenosis assessed by fractional flow reserve.Circ J. 2012; 76:2218–2225.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar24. Gonzalo N, Escaned J, Alfonso F, Nolte C, Rodriguez V, Jimenez-Quevedo P, Bañuelos C, Fernández-Ortiz A, Garcia E, Hernandez-Antolin R, et al. Morphometric assessment of coronary stenosis relevance with optical coherence tomography: a comparison with fractional flow reserve and intravascular ultrasound.J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012; 59:1080–1089.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar25. Reith S, Battermann S, Jaskolka A, Lehmacher W, Hoffmann R, Marx N, Burgmaier M. Relationship between optical coherence tomography derived intraluminal and intramural criteria and haemodynamic relevance as determined by fractional flow reserve in intermediate coronary stenoses of patients with type 2 diabetes. Heart.2013; 99:700–707.Google Scholar26. Zafar H, Ullah I, Dinneen K, Matiullah S, Hanley A, Leahy MJ, Sharif F. Evaluation of hemodynamically severe coronary stenosis as determined by fractional flow reserve with frequency domain optical coherence tomography measured anatomical parameters.J Cardiol. 2014; 64:19–24.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar27. Ha J, Kim JS, Lim J, Kim G, Lee S, Lee JS, Shin DH, Kim BK, Ko YG, Choi D, et al. Assessing computational fractional flow reserve from optical coherence tomography in patients with intermediate coronary stenosis in the left anterior descending artery.Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2016; 9:e003613.LinkGoogle Scholar28. Usui E, Yonetsu T, Kanaji Y, Hoshino M,Yamaguchi M, Hada M, Hamaya R, Kanno Y, Murai T, Lee T, et al. Efficacy of optical coherence tomography-derived morphometric assessment in predicting the physiological significance of coronary stenosis: head-to-head comparison with intravascular ultrasound.EuroIntervention. 2018; 13:e2210–e2218.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar29. Lee JM, Choi KH, Koo BK, Zhang J, Han JK, Yang HM, Park KW, Song YB, Hahn JY, Choi SH, et al. Intravascular ultrasound or optical coherence tomography-defined anatomic severity and hemodynamic severity assessed by coronary physiologic indices.Rev Esp Cardiol (Engl Ed). 2020; 73:812–821.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar Previous Back to top Next FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsRelated articlesDefinition of Optimal Optical Coherence Tomography–Based Stent Expansion Criteria: In-Stent Minimum Lumen Area Versus Residual Stent UnderexpansionEnrico Romagnoli, et al. Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions. 2022;15 September 2022Vol 15, Issue 9 Advertisement Article InformationMetrics © 2022 American Heart Association, Inc.https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.122.012368PMID: 36126134 Originally publishedSeptember 20, 2022 Keywordspercutaneous coronary interventionstentsthrombosisEditorialsmyocardial infarctionPDF download Advertisement SubjectsPercutaneous Coronary Intervention" @default.
• W4296477258 created "2022-09-21" @default.
• W4296477258 creator A5045551385 @default.
• W4296477258 creator A5064464956 @default.
• W4296477258 date "2022-09-01" @default.
• W4296477258 modified "2023-10-14" @default.
• W4296477258 title "The Bigger the Highway, the Less Likely the Traffic Jam" @default.
• W4296477258 cites W1890236620 @default.
• W4296477258 cites W1998950920 @default.
• W4296477258 cites W2001440077 @default.
• W4296477258 cites W2034719076 @default.
• W4296477258 cites W2065516779 @default.
• W4296477258 cites W2083293458 @default.
• W4296477258 cites W2120982763 @default.
• W4296477258 cites W2126684805 @default.
• W4296477258 cites W2137247837 @default.
• W4296477258 cites W2147003603 @default.
• W4296477258 cites W2174803828 @default.
• W4296477258 cites W2216278789 @default.
• W4296477258 cites W2297183285 @default.
• W4296477258 cites W2465660926 @default.
• W4296477258 cites W2501999370 @default.
• W4296477258 cites W2514535253 @default.
• W4296477258 cites W2545173169 @default.
• W4296477258 cites W2795791080 @default.
• W4296477258 cites W2803695296 @default.
• W4296477258 cites W2884916803 @default.
• W4296477258 cites W2899610111 @default.
• W4296477258 cites W2937621834 @default.
• W4296477258 cites W2979458506 @default.
• W4296477258 cites W2993250569 @default.
• W4296477258 cites W3082472855 @default.
• W4296477258 cites W3172120087 @default.
• W4296477258 cites W3190768770 @default.
• W4296477258 cites W4296515350 @default.
• W4296477258 cites W74356279 @default.
• W4296477258 doi "https://doi.org/10.1161/circinterventions.122.012368" @default.
• W4296477258 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36126134" @default.
• W4296477258 hasPublicationYear "2022" @default.
• W4296477258 type Work @default.
• W4296477258 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W4296477258 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W4296477258 hasAuthorship W4296477258A5045551385 @default.
• W4296477258 hasAuthorship W4296477258A5064464956 @default.
• W4296477258 hasConcept C127413603 @default.
• W4296477258 hasConcept C144133560 @default.
• W4296477258 hasConcept C22212356 @default.
• W4296477258 hasConcept C2779888511 @default.
• W4296477258 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W4296477258 hasConcept C64093975 @default.
• W4296477258 hasConcept C81631751 @default.
• W4296477258 hasConcept C86266404 @default.
• W4296477258 hasConceptScore W4296477258C127413603 @default.
• W4296477258 hasConceptScore W4296477258C144133560 @default.
• W4296477258 hasConceptScore W4296477258C22212356 @default.
• W4296477258 hasConceptScore W4296477258C2779888511 @default.
• W4296477258 hasConceptScore W4296477258C41008148 @default.
• W4296477258 hasConceptScore W4296477258C64093975 @default.
• W4296477258 hasConceptScore W4296477258C81631751 @default.
• W4296477258 hasConceptScore W4296477258C86266404 @default.
• W4296477258 hasIssue "9" @default.
• W4296477258 hasLocation W42964772581 @default.
• W4296477258 hasLocation W42964772582 @default.
• W4296477258 hasOpenAccess W4296477258 @default.
• W4296477258 hasPrimaryLocation W42964772581 @default.
• W4296477258 hasRelatedWork W2065983837 @default.
• W4296477258 hasRelatedWork W2074978951 @default.
• W4296477258 hasRelatedWork W2359285227 @default.
• W4296477258 hasRelatedWork W2361252294 @default.
• W4296477258 hasRelatedWork W2777787491 @default.
• W4296477258 hasRelatedWork W2997325070 @default.
• W4296477258 hasRelatedWork W3013810468 @default.
• W4296477258 hasRelatedWork W4246423052 @default.
• W4296477258 hasRelatedWork W562933282 @default.
• W4296477258 hasRelatedWork W609235084 @default.
• W4296477258 hasVolume "15" @default.
• W4296477258 isParatext "false" @default.
• W4296477258 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W4296477258 workType "article" @default.