These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

211 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26377904)

  • 1. Multi-laboratory inter-institute reproducibility study of IVOCT and IVUS assessments using published consensus document definitions.
    Gerbaud E; Weisz G; Tanaka A; Kashiwagi M; Shimizu T; Wang L; Souza C; Bouma BE; Suter MJ; Shishkov M; Ughi GJ; Halpern EF; Rosenberg M; Waxman S; Moses JW; Mintz GS; Maehara A; Tearney GJ
    Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging; 2016 Jul; 17(7):756-64. PubMed ID: 26377904
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Variability in quantitative and qualitative analysis of intravascular ultrasound and frequency domain optical coherence tomography.
    Abnousi F; Waseda K; Kume T; Otake H; Kawarada O; Yong CM; Fitzgerald PJ; Honda Y; Yeung AC; Fearon WF
    Catheter Cardiovasc Interv; 2013 Sep; 82(3):E192-9. PubMed ID: 23412754
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Plaque burden can be assessed using intravascular optical coherence tomography and a dedicated automated processing algorithm: a comparison study with intravascular ultrasound.
    Gerbaud E; Weisz G; Tanaka A; Luu R; Osman HASH; Baldwin G; Coste P; Cognet L; Waxman S; Zheng H; Moses JW; Mintz GS; Akasaka T; Maehara A; Tearney GJ
    Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging; 2020 Jun; 21(6):640-652. PubMed ID: 31326995
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Optical coherence tomography versus intravascular ultrasound in the evaluation of observer variability and reliability in the assessment of stent deployment: the OCTIVUS study.
    Magnus PC; Jayne JE; Garcia-Garcia HM; Swart M; van Es GA; Tijssen J; Kaplan AV
    Catheter Cardiovasc Interv; 2015 Aug; 86(2):229-35. PubMed ID: 25620044
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Agreement and reproducibility of gray-scale intravascular ultrasound and optical coherence tomography for the analysis of the bioresorbable vascular scaffold.
    Gómez-Lara J; Brugaletta S; Diletti R; Gogas BD; Farooq V; Onuma Y; Gobbens P; Van Es GA; García-García HM; Serruys PW
    Catheter Cardiovasc Interv; 2012 May; 79(6):890-902. PubMed ID: 21523891
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Quantitative precision of optical frequency domain imaging: direct comparison with frequency domain optical coherence tomography and intravascular ultrasound.
    Kobayashi Y; Kitahara H; Tanaka S; Okada K; Kimura T; Ikeno F; Yock PG; Fitzgerald PJ; Honda Y
    Cardiovasc Interv Ther; 2016 Apr; 31(2):79-88. PubMed ID: 26271203
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Intra- and interobserver reliability and intra-catheter reproducibility using frequency domain optical coherence tomography for the evaluation of morphometric stent parameters and qualitative assessment of stent strut coverage.
    Antonsen L; Thayssen P; Junker A; Veien KT; Hansen HS; Hansen KN; Hougaard M; Jensen LO
    Cardiovasc Revasc Med; 2015 Dec; 16(8):469-77. PubMed ID: 26475731
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Intravascular ultrasound-guided interventions in coronary artery disease: a systematic literature review, with decision-analytic modelling, of outcomes and cost-effectiveness.
    Berry E; Kelly S; Hutton J; Lindsay HS; Blaxill JM; Evans JA; Connelly J; Tisch J; Walker GC; Sivananthan UM; Smith MA
    Health Technol Assess; 2000; 4(35):1-117. PubMed ID: 11109031
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Comparison of longitudinal geometric measurement in human coronary arteries between frequency-domain optical coherence tomography and intravascular ultrasound.
    Liu Y; Shimamura K; Kubo T; Tanaka A; Kitabata H; Ino Y; Tanimoto T; Shiono Y; Orii M; Yamano T; Yamaguchi T; Hirata K; Imanishi T; Akasaka T
    Int J Cardiovasc Imaging; 2014 Feb; 30(2):271-7. PubMed ID: 24272334
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Lesion characteristics and coronary stent selection with computed tomographic coronary angiography: a pilot investigation comparing CTA, QCA and IVUS.
    Kass M; Glover CA; Labinaz M; So DY; Chen L; Yam Y; Chow BJ
    J Invasive Cardiol; 2010 Jul; 22(7):328-34. PubMed ID: 20603505
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Comparison between optical coherence tomography and intravascular ultrasound in detecting neointimal healing patterns after stent implantation.
    Kochman J; Pietrasik A; Rdzanak A; Jąkała J; Zasada W; Scibisz A; Kołtowski L; Proniewska K; Pociask E; Legutko J
    Kardiol Pol; 2014; 72(6):534-40. PubMed ID: 24293141
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. In vivo comparison of lumen dimensions measured by time domain-, and frequency domain-optical coherence tomography, and intravascular ultrasound.
    Kim SJ; Lee H; Kato K; Yonetsu T; Jang IK
    Int J Cardiovasc Imaging; 2013 Jun; 29(5):967-75. PubMed ID: 23292151
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. OCT compared with IVUS in a coronary lesion assessment: the OPUS-CLASS study.
    Kubo T; Akasaka T; Shite J; Suzuki T; Uemura S; Yu B; Kozuma K; Kitabata H; Shinke T; Habara M; Saito Y; Hou J; Suzuki N; Zhang S
    JACC Cardiovasc Imaging; 2013 Oct; 6(10):1095-1104. PubMed ID: 24011777
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Reproducibility of intravascular ultrasound radiofrequency data analysis: implications for the design of longitudinal studies.
    Rodriguez-Granillo GA; Vaina S; García-García HM; Valgimigli M; Duckers E; van Geuns RJ; Regar E; van der Giessen WJ; Bressers M; Goedhart D; Morel MA; de Feyter PJ; Serruys PW
    Int J Cardiovasc Imaging; 2006 Oct; 22(5):621-31. PubMed ID: 16575482
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. IVUS analysis of the acute and long-term stent result using motorized pullback: intraobserver and interobserver variability.
    Regar E; Werner F; Klauss V; Siebert U; Henneke KH; Rieber J; König A; Theisen K; Mudra H
    Catheter Cardiovasc Interv; 1999 Nov; 48(3):245-50. PubMed ID: 10525220
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Identification of coronary plaque sub-types using virtual histology intravascular ultrasound is affected by inter-observer variability and differences in plaque definitions.
    Obaid DR; Calvert PA; McNab D; West NE; Bennett MR
    Circ Cardiovasc Imaging; 2012 Jan; 5(1):86-93. PubMed ID: 22109982
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. In vivo volumetric analysis of coronary stent using optical coherence tomography with a novel balloon occlusion-flushing catheter: a comparison with intravascular ultrasound.
    Kawase Y; Hoshino K; Yoneyama R; McGregor J; Hajjar RJ; Jang IK; Hayase M
    Ultrasound Med Biol; 2005 Oct; 31(10):1343-9. PubMed ID: 16223637
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Improved reproducibility of intravascular ultrasound assessment of coronary in-stent neointima with the use of an echogenic contrast agent.
    Masuda J; Terashima M; Yokoyama M
    Jpn Circ J; 2001 Jul; 65(7):632-6. PubMed ID: 11446497
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Intravascular ultrasound and stent implantation: intraobserver and interobserver variability.
    Blessing E; Hausmann D; Sturm M; Wolpers HG; Amende I; Mügge A
    Am Heart J; 1999 Feb; 137(2):368-71. PubMed ID: 9924173
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. 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).
    Maehara A; Ben-Yehuda O; Ali Z; Wijns W; Bezerra HG; Shite J; Généreux P; Nichols M; Jenkins P; Witzenbichler B; Mintz GS; Stone GW
    JACC Cardiovasc Interv; 2015 Nov; 8(13):1704-14. PubMed ID: 26585621
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 11.