Inter- and intra-core laboratory variability in the quantitative coronary angiography analysis for drug-eluting stent treatment and follow up.

IF 2.6 Q2 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS Therapeutic Advances in Cardiovascular Disease Pub Date : 2020-01-01 DOI:10.1177/1753944720958982
Shigenori Ito, Kanako Kinoshita, Akiko Endo, Ryoko Kami, Yuko Kotake, Masato Nakamura
{"title":"Inter- and intra-core laboratory variability in the quantitative coronary angiography analysis for drug-eluting stent treatment and follow up.","authors":"Shigenori Ito, Kanako Kinoshita, Akiko Endo, Ryoko Kami, Yuko Kotake, Masato Nakamura","doi":"10.1177/1753944720958982","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>To evaluate inter-core laboratory variability of quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) parameters in comparison with intra-core laboratory variability in a randomized controlled trial evaluating drug-eluting stents.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of 50 patients with 62 coronary lesions were analyzed by four analysis experts belonging to an Angiographic Core Laboratory (ACL: 1 expert) and a Cardiovascular Imaging Core Laboratory (CICL: 3 experts). QCA was based on the same standard operating procedure, but selections of projection and cine frames were at the discretion of each analyst. Inter- and intra-core laboratory variabilities were evaluated by accuracy, precision, Bland Altman analysis, and coefficient of variation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Pre-MLD (minimal lumen diameter) was significantly smaller in results from ACL than those from all CICL experts. Number of analyzed projections did not affect pre-MLD results. Acute gain was larger in ACL than in CICL2. No significant difference was observed in late loss and loss index between inter-core laboratories. Agreement between core labs in the Bland-Altman analysis for each QCA parameter was as follows (mean difference, 95% limits of agreement): pre-MLD (-0.32, -0.74 to 0.10), stent MLD (0.08, -0.28 to 0.44), acute gain (0.22, -0.44 to 0.88), and late loss (-0.07, -0.69 to 0.55). Agreement between analysts in CICL (mean difference, 95% limits of agreement) was: pre MLD (-0.03, -0.37 to 0.31), stent MLD (0.15, -0.15 to 0.45), acute gain (0.05, -0.45 to 0.55), and late loss (0.04, -0.52 to 0.60). The widest limits of agreement among three analyses were shown in both analyses. Width of limited agreement in the intra-core laboratory analysis tended to be smaller than the inter-core laboratory analysis with these parameters. Coefficient of variation tended to be larger in lesion length (LL), acute gain, late loss, and loss index in inter- and in intra- core laboratory comparisons.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Inter-core laboratory QCA variability in late loss and loss index analysis could be similar to intra-core laboratory variability, but more strict alignment between core laboratories would be necessary for initial procedural data analysis.</p>","PeriodicalId":23035,"journal":{"name":"Therapeutic Advances in Cardiovascular Disease","volume":"14 ","pages":"1753944720958982"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/1a/a2/10.1177_1753944720958982.PMC7534069.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Therapeutic Advances in Cardiovascular Disease","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1753944720958982","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aim: To evaluate inter-core laboratory variability of quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) parameters in comparison with intra-core laboratory variability in a randomized controlled trial evaluating drug-eluting stents.

Methods: A total of 50 patients with 62 coronary lesions were analyzed by four analysis experts belonging to an Angiographic Core Laboratory (ACL: 1 expert) and a Cardiovascular Imaging Core Laboratory (CICL: 3 experts). QCA was based on the same standard operating procedure, but selections of projection and cine frames were at the discretion of each analyst. Inter- and intra-core laboratory variabilities were evaluated by accuracy, precision, Bland Altman analysis, and coefficient of variation.

Results: Pre-MLD (minimal lumen diameter) was significantly smaller in results from ACL than those from all CICL experts. Number of analyzed projections did not affect pre-MLD results. Acute gain was larger in ACL than in CICL2. No significant difference was observed in late loss and loss index between inter-core laboratories. Agreement between core labs in the Bland-Altman analysis for each QCA parameter was as follows (mean difference, 95% limits of agreement): pre-MLD (-0.32, -0.74 to 0.10), stent MLD (0.08, -0.28 to 0.44), acute gain (0.22, -0.44 to 0.88), and late loss (-0.07, -0.69 to 0.55). Agreement between analysts in CICL (mean difference, 95% limits of agreement) was: pre MLD (-0.03, -0.37 to 0.31), stent MLD (0.15, -0.15 to 0.45), acute gain (0.05, -0.45 to 0.55), and late loss (0.04, -0.52 to 0.60). The widest limits of agreement among three analyses were shown in both analyses. Width of limited agreement in the intra-core laboratory analysis tended to be smaller than the inter-core laboratory analysis with these parameters. Coefficient of variation tended to be larger in lesion length (LL), acute gain, late loss, and loss index in inter- and in intra- core laboratory comparisons.

Conclusion: Inter-core laboratory QCA variability in late loss and loss index analysis could be similar to intra-core laboratory variability, but more strict alignment between core laboratories would be necessary for initial procedural data analysis.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
用于药物洗脱支架治疗和随访的冠状动脉造影定量分析的实验室间和实验室内差异。
目的:在一项评估药物洗脱支架的随机对照试验中,评估定量冠状动脉造影(QCA)参数的核心实验室间变异性与核心实验室内变异性的比较:血管造影核心实验室(ACL:1 名专家)和心血管造影核心实验室(CICL:3 名专家)的 4 名分析专家共对 50 名患者的 62 个冠状动脉病变进行了分析。QCA 基于相同的标准操作程序,但投影和电影帧的选择由每位分析师自行决定。通过准确度、精确度、Bland Altman 分析和变异系数评估了核心实验室之间和内部的差异:结果:前MLD(最小管腔直径)在 ACL 的结果中明显小于所有 CICL 专家的结果。分析投影的数量不会影响前 MLD 的结果。ACL 的急性增益大于 CICL2。核心实验室之间在后期损失和损失指数方面没有明显差异。在 Bland-Altman 分析中,各 QCA 参数的核心实验室之间的一致性如下(平均差,95% 的一致性限制):MLD 前(-0.32,-0.74 至 0.10)、支架 MLD(0.08,-0.28 至 0.44)、急性增益(0.22,-0.44 至 0.88)和晚期丢失(-0.07,-0.69 至 0.55)。分析师之间在 CICL 方面的一致性(平均差,95% 的一致性限值)为:前 MLD(-0.03,-0.37 至 0.31)、支架 MLD(0.15,-0.15 至 0.45)、急性增益(0.05,-0.45 至 0.55)和晚期损失(0.04,-0.52 至 0.60)。两项分析均显示了三项分析中最宽的一致性范围。就这些参数而言,岩心内实验室分析的有限一致宽度往往小于岩心间实验室分析。在病变长度(LL)、急性增益、晚期损失和损失指数方面,核心实验室间和核心实验室内比较的变异系数往往更大:结论:在晚期损失和损失指数分析中,核心实验室之间的 QCA 变异性可能与核心实验室内部的变异性相似,但在初始程序数据分析中,核心实验室之间有必要进行更严格的协调。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Therapeutic Advances in Cardiovascular Disease
Therapeutic Advances in Cardiovascular Disease CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS-
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
11
审稿时长
9 weeks
期刊介绍: The journal is aimed at clinicians and researchers from the cardiovascular disease field and will be a forum for all views and reviews relating to this discipline.Topics covered will include: ·arteriosclerosis ·cardiomyopathies ·coronary artery disease ·diabetes ·heart failure ·hypertension ·metabolic syndrome ·obesity ·peripheral arterial disease ·stroke ·arrhythmias ·genetics
期刊最新文献
Evolocumab use in clinical practice in Switzerland: final data of the observational HEYMANS cohort study. The impact of platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio on clinical outcomes in heart failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Vasospastic angina: a review on diagnostic approach and management. Percutaneous image-guided management of a misplaced pericardiocentesis catheter into the inferior vena cava. Safety and potential usefulness of sequential intracoronary acetylcholine and ergonovine administration for spasm provocation testing.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1