首页> 外文期刊>Journal of computer assisted tomography >Diagnostic accuracy in coronary stenosis: comparison between visual score and quantitative analysis (quantitative computed tomographic angiography) in coronary angiography by multidetector computed tomography-coronary angiography and quantitative analysis (quantitative coronary angiography) in conventional coronary angiography.
【24h】

Diagnostic accuracy in coronary stenosis: comparison between visual score and quantitative analysis (quantitative computed tomographic angiography) in coronary angiography by multidetector computed tomography-coronary angiography and quantitative analysis (quantitative coronary angiography) in conventional coronary angiography.

机译:冠状动脉狭窄的诊断准确性:通过多探测器计算机断层扫描-冠状动脉造影和常规冠状动脉造影中的定量分析(定量冠状动脉造影)对视觉评分和冠状动脉造影定量分析(定量计算机断层血管造影)进行比较。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

BACKGROUND: Multidetector computed tomography-coronary angiography allows quantification of coronary stenosis with a high level of accuracy; however, the inherent inaccuracy of visual score still remains. Computed quantitative vessel analysis systems (quantitative computed tomographic angiography [QCTA]) aim to overcome this limitation. The aim of our study was to evaluate the accuracy of QCTA in comparison with quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) and visual score using the QCA. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two operators visually scored 30 consecutive patients referred for multidetector computed tomography-coronary angiography to assess stenotic segments according to a modified 17-segment American Heart Association classification model. Coronary angiography was performed within 1 week. The degree of stenosis was classified as 0%, lower than 20% (wall irregularities), lower than 50% (without significant disease), and higher than 50% (significant disease). Each segment was then analyzed using electronic calipers of the QCTA system. Data were compared with QCA results. Each segment was finally classified as fibrofatty, mixed, and calcified. Comparisons between QCTA results, visual score, and QCA were performed by means of Spearman rank correlation. Interobserver variability is calculated using kappa statistics. RESULTS: From a total of 870 segments, 69 were diseased. Interobserver agreement between the 2 operators resulted very high (kappa = 0.97). A good correlation was found between visual score and QCA (rho = 0.932, P < 0.0001) and between visual score and QCTA (rho = 0.845, P < 0.0001). A moderate correlation was found between QCTA and QCA (rho = 0.810, P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The accuracy of QCTA is comparable with that of QCA and visual score especially in noncalcified vessels. Editing of the vessel contours in case of calcified vessels is helpful in correctly estimating the right percentage of stenosis.
机译:背景技术:多探测器计算机断层扫描-冠状动脉造影可以高度准确地量化冠状动脉狭窄。但是,视觉评分的固有误差仍然存在。计算机定量血管分析系统(定量计算机断层血管造影[QCTA])旨在克服这一局限性。我们研究的目的是评估QCTA与定量冠状动脉造影(QCA)和使用QCA的视觉评分相比的准确性。材料与方法:两名操作员根据经过修改的17段美国心脏协会分类模型,对30名连续接受多台计算机断层扫描-冠状动脉造影检查的患者进行视觉评分,以评估狭窄段。 1周内进行冠状动脉造影。狭窄程度分为0%,低于20%(壁不规则),低于50%(无重大疾病)和高于50%(重大疾病)。然后使用QCTA系统的电子卡尺分析每个片段。将数据与QCA结果进行比较。最后,将每个部分分类为纤维脂肪,混合和钙化。 QCTA结果,视觉评分和QCA之间的比较是通过Spearman等级相关性进行的。使用kappa统计信息来计算观察者之间的差异。结果:在总共870个段中,有69个患病。两家运营商之间的观察员之间达成的协议非常高(kappa = 0.97)。视觉评分与QCA(rho = 0.932,P <0.0001)之间以及视觉评分与QCTA(rho = 0.845,P <0.0001)之间具有良好的相关性。在QCTA和QCA之间发现中等相关性(rho = 0.810,P <0.0001)。结论:QCTA的准确性与QCA和视觉评分相当,特别是在非钙化血管中。在血管钙化的情况下编辑血管轮廓有助于正确估计狭窄的正确百分比。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号