首页> 外文OA文献 >Grading of carotid artery stenosis with multidetector-row CT angiography: visual estimation or caliper measurements?
【2h】

Grading of carotid artery stenosis with multidetector-row CT angiography: visual estimation or caliper measurements?

机译:多排行CT血管造影对颈动脉狭窄的分级:视觉估计还是卡尺测量?

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

To assess the optimal method for grading carotid artery stenosis with computed tomographic angiography (CTA), we compared visual estimation to caliper measurements, and determined inter-observer variability and agreement relative to digital subtraction angiography (DSA). We included 46 patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis for whom CTA and DSA of 55 carotids was available. Stenosis quantification by CTA using visual estimation (CTAVE) (method 1) was compared with caliper measurements using subjectively optimized wide window settings (method 2) or predefined contrast-dependent narrow window settings (method 3). Measurements were independently performed by two radiologists and two residents. To determine accuracy and inter-observer variability, we calculated linear weighted kappa, performed a Bland-Altman analysis and calculated mean difference (bias) and standard deviation of differences (SDD). For inter-observer variability, kappa analysis was “very good” (0.85) for expert observers using CTAVE compared with “good” (0.61) for experts using DSA. Compared with DSA, method 1 led to overestimation (bias 5.8–8.0%, SDD 10.6–14.4), method 3 led to underestimation (bias −6.3 to −3.0%, SDD 13.0–18.1). Measurement variability between DSA and visual estimation on CTA (SDD 11.5) is close to the inter-observer variability of repeated measurements on DSA that we found in this study (SDD 11.6). For CTA of carotids, stenosis grading based on visual estimation provides better agreement to grading by DSA compared with stenosis grading based on caliper measurements.
机译:为了评估使用计算机断层血管造影(CTA)对颈动脉狭窄进行分级的最佳方法,我们将视觉估计与卡尺测量进行了比较,并确定了观察者间的差异性和相对于数字减影血管造影(DSA)的一致性。我们纳入了46例有症状的颈动脉狭窄患者,他们可获得55个颈动脉的CTA和DSA。使用主观优化的宽窗口设置(方法2)或预定义的对比度相关的窄窗口设置(方法3),将使用视觉估计(CTAVE)(方法1)通过CTA进行的狭窄量化与卡尺测量进行比较。测量是由两名放射科医生和两名居民独立进行的。为了确定准确性和观察者之间的变异性,我们计算了线性加权kappa,进行了Bland-Altman分析,并计算了平均差异(偏差)和差异标准差(SDD)。对于观察者间的变异性,使用CTAVE的专家观察者的kappa分析为“非常好”(0.85),而使用DSA的专家则为“良好”(0.61)。与DSA相比,方法1导致高估(偏差5.8-8.0%,SDD 10.6-14.4),方法3导致低估(偏差-6.3至-3.0%,SDD 13.0-18.1)。 DSA和CTA的视觉估计之间的测量差异(SDD 11.5)与我们在本研究中发现的重复测量DSA的观察者间差异(SDD 11.6)接近。对于颈动脉的CTA,与基于卡尺测量的狭窄分级相比,基于视觉估计的狭窄分级与DSA分级具有更好的一致性。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

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