Citation: The International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging. 35(12):2139-2146, 2019 Dec..Journal: The international journal of cardiovascular imaging.Published: 2019; ISSN: 1569-5794.Full author list: Beyene SS; Brathwaite EJ; Dan K; Garcia-Garcia HM; Hideo-Kajita A; Kuku KO; Meirovich YF; Melaku GD; Ozaki Y; Torguson R; Waksman R; Wopperer S.UI/PMID: 31352559.Subject(s): *Coronary Angiography/is [Instrumentation] | *Coronary Stenosis/dg [Diagnostic Imaging] | *Coronary Vessels/dg [Diagnostic Imaging] | *Models, Cardiovascular | *Phantoms, Imaging | *Radiographic Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted/mt [Methods] | Aged | Female | Humans | Male | Middle Aged | Predictive Value of Tests | Reproducibility of Results | Severity of Illness IndexInstitution(s): MedStar Georgetown University Hospital Residents | MedStar Heart & Vascular InstituteActivity type: Journal Article.Medline article type(s): Journal ArticleDigital Object Identifier: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10554-019-01672-z (Click here)ORCID: Garcia-Garcia, Hector M http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9642-5182 (Click here)Abbreviated citation: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 35(12):2139-2146, 2019 Dec.Abstract: Percentage diameter stenosis (%DS) by angiography is still commonly used to determine luminal obstruction of coronary artery disease (CAD) lesions. While visual estimation of %DS is widespread, because of high inter-operator variability, quantitative coronary arteriography (QCA) analysis is the gold standard. There are two %DS formulas: %DS1 averages the proximal and distal reference vessel diameter (RVD); %DS2 interpolates the RVD. This study aims to evaluate the difference between %DS assessed by QCA in two datasets, phantom lesion models and CAD patients. Ten phantom lesion models (PLMs) and 354 CAD lesions from the FIRST trial were assessed by QCA. In the latter, two scenarios were assessed: Scenario A (worst view), the most common approach in the clinical setting; and Scenario B (average of two complementary views), the standard core-laboratory analysis. In the PLMs, %DS1 and %DS2 mean +/- standard deviation (median) was 58.5 +/- 21.7 (61.6) and 58.7 +/- 21.6 (61.8), respectively, with a signed difference of - 0.2% +/- 0.3% (- 0.1%). In Scenario A, the mean %DS1 was 43.8 +/- 9.1 (43.3) and 44.0 +/- 9.1 (42 .9) in %DS2. In Scenario B, the mean %DS1 was 45.3 +/- 8.8 (45.1) and 45.5 +/- 9.0 (45.1) in %DS2. The signed difference was - 0.2% +/- 2.4% (0.0%) and - 0.2% +/- 2.1% (0.0%) in Scenario A and B, respectively. These differences between formulas ranged from - 1.2 to 0.5% for the phantom cases compared to - 17.7% to 7.7% in Scenario A and to - 15.5% to 7.1% in Scenario B. Although the overall means of the formulas provide similar results, significant lesion-level differences are observed. The use of the worst view versus the average of two views provided similar results.