Journal of Invasive Cardiology

References

1. Mintz GS, Nissen SE, Anderson WD, et al. American College of Cardiology clinical expert consensus document on standards for acquisition, measurement, and reporting of intravascular ultrasound studies (IVUS). A report of the American College of Cardiology Task Force on Clinical Expert Consensus Documents. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2001;37(5):1478-1492.
2. Bezerra HG, Costa MA, Guagliumi G, Rollins AM, Simon DI. Intracoronary optical coherence tomography: a comprehensive review clinical and research applications. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2009;2(11):1035-1046.
3. Kawamori H, Shite J, Shinke T, et al. The ability of optical coherence tomography to monitor percutaneous coronary intervention: detailed comparison with intravascular ultrasound. J Invasive Cardiol. 2010;22(11):541-545.
4. Yamaguchi T, Terashima M, Akasaka T, et al. Safety and feasibility of an intravascular optical coherence tomography image wire system in the clinical setting. Am J Cardiol. 2008;101(5):562-567.
5. Harville D. Maximum likelihood approaches to variance component estimation and to related problems. J Am Stat Assoc. 1977;72:320-338.
6. Gonzalo N, Serruys PW, Garcia-Garcia HM, et al. Quantitative ex vivo and in vivo comparison of lumen dimensions measured by optical coherence tomography and intravascular ultrasound in human coronary arteries. Rev Esp Cardiol. 2009;62(6):615-624.
7. Gonzalo N, Tearney GJ, Serruys PW, et al. Second-generation optical coherence tomography in clinical practice. High-speed data acquisition is highly reproducible in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Rev Esp Cardiol. 2010;63(8):893-903.
8. Stefano GT, Bezerra HG, Attizzani G, et al. 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. 2011;27(2):299-308.
9. Tahara S, Bezerra HG, Baibars M, et al. In vitro validation of new Fourier-domain optical coherence tomography. EuroIntervention. 2011;6(7):875-882.
10. Alfonso F, Macaya C, Goicolea J, et al. Angiographic changes (Dotter effect) produced by intravascular ultrasound imaging before coronary angioplasty. Am Heart J. 1994;128(2):244-251.
11. Alfonso F, Macaya C, Goicolea J, et al. Determinants of coronary compliance in patients with coronary artery disease: an intravascular ultrasound study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1994;23(4):879-884.
12. Nakatani S, Yamagishi M, Tamai J, et al. Assessment of coronary artery distensibility by intravascular ultrasound. Application of simultaneous measurements of luminal area and pressure. Circulation. 1995;91(12):2904-2910.
13. Tsutsui H, Schoenhagen P, Crowe TD, et al. Influence of coronary pulsation on volumetric intravascular ultrasound measurements performed without ECG-gating. Validation in vessel segments with minimal disease. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2003;19(1):51-57.
14. Bruining N, von Birgelen C, de Feyter PJ, et al. ECG-gated versus nongated three-dimensional intracoronary ultrasound analysis: implications for volumetric measurements. Cathet Cardiovasc Diagn. 1998;43(3):254-260.
15. Jensen LO, Thayssen P. Accuracy of electrocardiographic-gated versus nongated volumetric intravascular ultrasound measurements of coronary arterial narrowing. Am J Cardiol. 2007;99(2):279-283.

_________________________________________________