Impact of two formulas to calculate percentage diameter stenosis of coronary lesions: from stenosis models (phantom lesion model) to actual clinical lesions.

MedStar author(s):
Citation: The International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging. 35(12):2139-2146, 2019 Dec.PMID: 31352559Institution: MedStar Georgetown University Hospital Residents | MedStar Heart & Vascular InstituteForm of publication: Journal ArticleMedline article type(s): Journal ArticleSubject headings: *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 IndexYear: 2019ISSN:
  • 1569-5794
Name of journal: The international journal of cardiovascular imagingAbstract: 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.All authors: 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 SFiscal year: FY2020Digital Object Identifier: ORCID: Date added to catalog: 2019-12-04
Holdings
Item type Current library Collection Call number Status Date due Barcode
Journal Article MedStar Authors Catalog Article 31352559 Available 31352559

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.

English

Powered by Koha