Statements in which the resource exists.
SubjectPredicateObjectContext
pubmed-article:2011983rdf:typepubmed:Citationlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:2011983lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0332437lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:2011983lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0205101lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:2011983lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0002978lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:2011983lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0489868lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:2011983lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C1883674lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:2011983lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0220825lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:2011983lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0041618lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:2011983lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C1707455lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:2011983lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C1456025lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:2011983lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0439534lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:2011983pubmed:issue9lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:2011983pubmed:dateCreated1991-5-3lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:2011983pubmed:abstractTextValidation of catheter-based intravascular ultrasound imaging has been based on comparisons with histology and digital angiography, each of which may have limitations in the assessment of arterial size and morphology. External, high-frequency ultrasound can accurately determine vessel dimensions and morphology and because, like ultravascular ultrasound, it also provides cross-sectional arterial ultrasound images, it may be a more appropriate technique for the in vivo comparison of arterial dimensions and morphology determined by intravascular ultrasound. Thus, intravascular ultrasound, external 2-dimensional ultrasound, Doppler color-flow imaging and digital angiography were compared for assessment of arterial dimensions and wall morphology at 29 femoral artery sites in 15 patients. Intravascular ultrasound and the other 3 imaging modalities correlated well in determination of lumen diameter (2-dimensional, r = 0.98, standard error of the estimate [SEE] = 0.14; Doppler color flow, r = 0.91, SEE = 1.11; angiography, r = 0.95, SEE = 0.91) and cross-sectional area (2-dimensional, r = 0.97, SEE = 0.04; Doppler color flow, r = 0.92, SEE = 0.14; angiography, r = 0.96, SEE = 0.08). However, lumen size measured by Doppler color flow was consistently smaller than that measured by the other 3 imaging modalities. Intravascular ultrasound detected arterial plaque at 15 sites, 5 of which were hypoechoic (soft) and 10 hyperechoic with distal shadowing (hard). Plaque was identified at 12 of 15 sites by Z-dimensional imaging (p = 0.30 vs intravascular ultrasound), but at only 6 of 15 sites by angiography (p = 0.003 vs intravascular ultrasound), only 1 of which was thought to be calcified plaque.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:2011983pubmed:granthttp://linkedlifedata.com/r...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:2011983pubmed:languageenglld:pubmed
pubmed-article:2011983pubmed:journalhttp://linkedlifedata.com/r...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:2011983pubmed:citationSubsetAIMlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:2011983pubmed:statusMEDLINElld:pubmed
pubmed-article:2011983pubmed:monthAprlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:2011983pubmed:issn0002-9149lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:2011983pubmed:authorpubmed-author:KissloJJlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:2011983pubmed:authorpubmed-author:BashoreT MTMlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:2011983pubmed:authorpubmed-author:HarrisonJ KJKlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:2011983pubmed:authorpubmed-author:DavidsonC JCJlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:2011983pubmed:authorpubmed-author:KissloK BKBlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:2011983pubmed:authorpubmed-author:SheikhK HKHlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:2011983pubmed:authorpubmed-author:HimmelsteinS...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:2011983pubmed:issnTypePrintlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:2011983pubmed:day15lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:2011983pubmed:volume67lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:2011983pubmed:ownerNLMlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:2011983pubmed:authorsCompleteYlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:2011983pubmed:pagination817-22lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:2011983pubmed:dateRevised2007-11-14lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:2011983pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:2011983-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:2011983pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:2011983-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:2011983pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:2011983-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:2011983pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:2011983-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:2011983pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:2011983-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:2011983pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:2011983-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:2011983pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:2011983-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:2011983pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:2011983-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:2011983pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:2011983-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:2011983pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:2011983-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:2011983pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:2011983-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:2011983pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:2011983-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:2011983pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:2011983-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:2011983pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:2011983-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:2011983pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:2011983-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:2011983pubmed:year1991lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:2011983pubmed:articleTitleComparison of intravascular ultrasound, external ultrasound and digital angiography for evaluation of peripheral artery dimensions and morphology.lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:2011983pubmed:affiliationDepartment of Medicine, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina 27710.lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:2011983pubmed:publicationTypeJournal Articlelld:pubmed
pubmed-article:2011983pubmed:publicationTypeComparative Studylld:pubmed
pubmed-article:2011983pubmed:publicationTypeResearch Support, U.S. Gov't, P.H.S.lld:pubmed