Angiography and optical coherence tomography derived shear stress: are they equivalent in my opinion?

Advances in image reconstruction using either single or multimodality imaging data provide increasingly accurate three-dimensional (3D) patient’s arterial models for shear stress evaluation using computational fluid dynamics (CFD). We aim to evaluate the impacts on endothelial shear stress (ESS) derived from a simple image reconstruction using 3D-quantitative coronary angiography (3D-QCA) versus a multimodality reconstruction method using optical coherence tomography (OCT) in patients’ vessels treated with bioresorbable scaffolds. Seven vessels at baseline and five-year follow-up of seven patients from a previous CFD investigation were retrospectively selected for a head-to-head comparison of angiography-derived versus OCT-derived ESS. 3D-QCA significantly underestimated the minimum stent area [MSA] (-2.38mm²) and the stent length (-1.46 mm) compared to OCT-fusion method reconstructions. After carefully co-registering the region of interest for all cases with a sophisticated statistical method, the difference in MSA measurements as well as the inability of angiography to visualise the strut footprint in the lumen surface have translated to higher angiography-derived ESS than OCT-derived ESS (1.76 Pa or 1.52 times for the overlapping segment). The difference in ESS widened with a more restricted region of interest (1.97 Pa or 1.63 times within the scaffold segment). Angiography and OCT offer two distinctive methods of ESS calculation. Angiography-derived ESS tends to overestimate the ESS compared to OCT-derived ESS. Further investigations into ESS analysis resolution play a vital role in adopting OCT-derived ESS.