A novel <scp>fiber‐optic</scp> based 0.014″ pressure wire: Designs of the <scp>OptoWire</scp>™, development phases, and the <scp>O<sub>2</sub> first‐in‐man</scp> results
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objectives To review the technical limitations of available pressure‐wires, present the design evolution of a nitinol fiber‐optic pressure wire and to summarize the First‐in‐Man (FIM) O 2 pilot study results. Background Despite increasing use of physiology assessment of coronary lesions, several technical limitations persist. We present technical details, design evolution and early clinical results with a novel 0.014” nitinol fiber‐optic based pressure‐wire. Methods and Results The 0.014’ OptoWire™ (Opsens Medical, Quebec, Canada) was designed to combine improved handling properties compared to standard pressure‐wires and to offer extremely reliable pressure recording and transmission due to fiber‐optic properties compared to piezo‐electric sensors and electrical wires. In vitro assessment showed that OptoWire™ steerability, pushability and torquability properties were closer to regular PCI wires than standard electrical pressure wires. In the First‐in‐Man O 2 study, 60 patients were recruited at 2 centers in Canada. A total of 103 lesions were assessed with the OptoWire™ and OptoMonitor™, 75 lesions at baseline and 28 lesions post‐PCI (without disconnection). In all crossed lesions (n = 100, 97%), mean Pd/Pa and FFR could be adequately measured. In 11 cases assessed successively with OptoWire™ and Aegis™ (Abbott Vascular, USA) bland‐Altman analysis showed a mean difference of 0.002 ± 0.052 mmHg ( p = .91) for Pd/Pa and 0.01 ± 0.06 for FFR calculation ( p = .45). There was no device‐related complication. Upon these initial results, several design changes aimed to improve overall performance including torquability, stiffness, resistance to kink and pressure drift were completed. Conclusion The novel 0.014” fiber‐optic OptoWire™ provides superior wire handling with reduced risk of pressure drift allowing reliable pre‐ and post‐PCI physiology assessment.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".