OCT has higher resolution than IVUS; do you agree that OCT will take the place of IVUS in the future? If not， what is the necessity of IVUS being continuously used in future clinical practice?

Dr. Waksman: Obviously there is an advantage of OCT in terms of resolution but not deep penetration; it’s relatively superficial. It primarily helps to look at stent apposition and identifying thrombosis and dissection more clearly and accurately compared to IVUS. These technologies require much more training in terms of training but have a good image that gives us a lot of detail in terms of stent apposition. The question is whether or not you can combine all of these technologies in one catheter. Presently this is not feasible but some companies have two or three of them. All of these technologies are not used that much， with less than 10% use for FFR and 10-15% for IVUS， with OCT used only as a research tool. I think with integration of the systems we may use them more.