Full Text
The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (1.5 MB).
References
- 1. Nissen SE, Gurley JC, Grines CL, et al. Intravascular ultrasound assessment of lumen size and wall morphology in normal subjects and patients with coronary artery disease. Circulation 1991; 84: 1087–1099. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2. Garcia JA, Movassaghi B, Casserly IP, et al. Determination of optimal viewing regions for X‐ray coronary angiography based on a quantitative analysis of 3D reconstructed models. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 2009; 25(5): 455–462. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3. Chen SY, Carroll J. 3‐D reconstruction of coronary arterial tree to optimize angiographic visualization. IEEE Trans Med Imag 2000; 19: 318–336. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4. Maddux JT, Wink O, Messenger JC, et al. Randomized study of the safety and clinical utility of rotational angiography versus standard angiography in the diagnosis of coronary artery disease. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2004; 62: 167–174. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5. Garcia JA, Chen SY, Messenger JC, et al. Initial clinical experience of selective coronary angiography using one prolonged injection and a 180 degrees rotational trajectory. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2007; 70: 190–196. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6. Garcia JA, Agostoni P, Green N, et al. Rotational vs. standard coronary angiography: An image content analysis. Cathet Cardiovasc Intervent 2009; 73(6): 753–761. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7. Green N, Chen SY, Hansgen A, et al. Angiographic views used for percutaneous coronary interventions: a three‐dimensional analysis of physician‐determined vs. computer‐generated views. Cathet Cardiovasc Intervent 2005; 64: 451–459. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]