- #Reviews of imazing software software#
- #Reviews of imazing software trial#
- #Reviews of imazing software series#
#Reviews of imazing software software#
The OPTIS™ Integrated System and Mobile System with Software are contraindicated where introduction of any catheter would constitute a threat to patient safety. The physician may use the acquired physiological parameters, along with knowledge of patient history, medical expertise and clinical judgment to determine if therapeutic intervention is indicated. The OPTIS™ Imaging System is intended for use in the catheterization and related cardiovascular specialty laboratories and will further compute and display various physiological parameters based on the output from one or more electrodes, transducers, or measuring devices. The compatible Dragonfly™ Imaging Catheters are not intended for use in the left main coronary artery or in a target vessel which has undergone a previous bypass procedure. The compatible Dragonfly™ Imaging Catheters are intended for use in vessels 2.0 to 3.5 mm in diameter. The OPTIS™ Imaging System with a compatible Dragonfly™ Imaging Catheter is intended for the imaging of coronary arteries and is indicated in patients who are candidates for transluminal interventional procedures.
#Reviews of imazing software series#
The OPTIS™ Software and AptiVue™ E Series Software are intended to be used only with compatible OPTIS™ Imaging Systems. Top of page OPTIS™ Imaging Systems and Software INDICATIONS
TCT-572 final 5-year outcome after implantation of zotarolimus-eluting Resolute stents versus everolimus-eluting Xience V stents in the broad patient population of the randomized TWENTE trial.
Stent thrombosis and restenosis: what have we learned and where are we going? Eur Heart J. Validation of a novel non-hyperaemic index of coronary artery stenosis severity: the Resting Full-cycle Ratio (VALIDATE RFR) study. CLinical Impact of OCT findings during PCI: the CLI-OPCI II study. Effect of intravascular ultrasound-guided vs angiography-guided everolimus-eluting stent implantation: the IVUS-XPL randomized clinical trial. Intravascular ultrasound versus angiography-guided drug-eluting stent implantation: the ULTIMATE trial. Information provided for educational purposes only.ġ. Note: Results from clinical trials are not directly comparable.
#Reviews of imazing software trial#
Optical coherence tomography compared with intravascular ultrasound and with angiography to guide coronary stent implantation (ILUMIEN III: OPTIMIZE PCI): a randomised controlled trial The Lancet, Volume 388, Issue 10060, 2618 – 2628. Dohi, Etiology, Frequency, and Clinical Outcomes of Myocardial Infarction After Successful Drug-Eluting Stent Implantation Two-Year Follow-Up From the ADAPT-DES Study Cardiac Catheterization, 2019.ĥ. Zhang et al., “Intravascular Ultrasound Versus Angiography-Guided Drug-Eluting Stent Implantation.” ULTIMATE, JACC, 2018.Ĥ. Comparison of intravascular ultrasound guided versus angiography guided drug eluting stent implantation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Zhang, Y., Pang, S., Chen, X., Bourantas, C. Hong S et al., “Effect of Intravascular Ultrasound–Guided vs Angiography-Guided Everolimus-Eluting Stent Implantation: The IVUS-XPL Randomized Clinical Trial.” JAMA, 2015.Ģ. Longer stent lengths and larger stent sizes were used in the IVUS-guided groupġ. The use of imaging was associated with reductions in MACE, death and STĬompared to angio only (p 5.0 mm 2 or 90% of the MLA at the distal reference segments Larger stent areas and diameters in imaging group
Minimal lumen area > lumen area of distal reference
0 kommentar(er)
