Abstract
To evaluate intra- and interobserver variability of an on-line quantitative coronary angiographic system, 2 independent observers measured 166 primary lesions excluding total occlusions before and after coronary angioplasty. Each observer repeated his measurement 3 times at 14 days interval. The average percent diameter stenosis results obtained by observer 1 and 2 were almost identical, before (62.2% ± 12.0% and 62.6% ±11.4%, NS) and after (27.1% ± 12.0% and 26.9% ± 11.3%, NS) angioplasty.
Variability was expressed as 95 % limits of agreement (mean difference ± 2 x SD). The intra-observer variability of observer 1 ranged from − 6.6% to 6.6% before angioplasty and from − 9.6% to 9.6% after angioplasty. The corresponding limits of observer 2 were − 8.0% to 7.5% and − 8.3% to 8.5%, respectively. The interobserver variability ranged from −10.4% to 9.6% before versus −12.5% to 13.1% after angioplasty. This variability was not influenced by vessel size. The widening of the limits observed after angioplasty was largely due to an increased variability in the measurements of the absolute minimal luminal diameter but not of the reference segment. We conclude that the intra- and interobserver variability of measurements obtained with an on-line quantitative angiographic system used for guiding coronary interventions is acceptable and without systematic bias in any direction for a wide range of primary coronary stenoses. However, the variability increases when images are acquired immediately after angioplasty.
Similar content being viewed by others
Abbreviations
- PTCA:
-
percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty
- QCA:
-
quantitative coronary arteriography
References
Detre KM, Wright E, Murphy ML, Takaro T. Observer agreement in evaluating coronary angiograms. Circulation 1975; 52: 979–86.
Sanmarco ME, Brooks SH, Blankenhorn DH. Reproducibility of a consensus panel in the interpretation of coronary angiograms. Am Heart J 1978; 96: 430–7.
Zir LM, Miller SW, Dinsmore RE, Gilbert JP, Harthorne JW. Interobserver variability in coronary angiography. Circulation 1976; 53: 627–32.
DeRouen TA, Murray JA, Owen W. Variability in the analysis of coronary arteriograms. Circulation 1977; 55: 324–8.
Fisher LD, Judkins MP, Lesperance J, Cameron A, Swaye P, Ryan T, Maynard C, Bourassa M, Kennedy JW, Gosselin A, Kemp H, Faxon D, Wexler L, Davic KB. Reproducibility of coronary arteriographic reading in the coronary artery surgery study (CASS). Cathet Cardiovasc Diagn 1982; 8: 565–75.
Earth K, Eicker B, Bittner U, Marhoff P. The improvement of vessel quantification with image processing equipment for high resolution digital angiography. In: Lemke HV (ed). Computer-Assisted Radiology. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1989: 220–5.
Fortin DF, Spero LA, Cusma JT, Santoro L, Burgess R, Bashore TM. Pitfalls in the determination of absolute dimensions using angiographic catheters as calibration devices in quantitative angiography. Am J Cardiol 1991; 68: 1176–82.
Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986; 8: 307–10.
Editorial note: Measurement imprecision: ignore or investigate? Lancet 1992; 339: 587–8.
Hermiller JB, Cusma JT, Spero LA, Fortin DF, Harding MB, Bashore TM. Quantitative and qualitative coronary angiographic analysis: Review of methods, utility, and limitations. Cathet Cardiovasc Diagn 1992; 25: 110–31.
Gurley JC, Nissen SE, Booth DC, DeMaria AM. Influence of operator- and patient-dependent variables on the suitability of automated quantitative coronary arteriography for routine clinical use. J Am Coll Cardiol 1992; 19: 1237–43.
Mancini JGB, Williamson PR, DeBoe SF. Effect of coronary stenosis severity on variability of quantitative arteriography and implications for interventional trials. Am J Cardiol 1992; 69: 806–7.
Reiber JHC, van Eldik-Helleman P, Visser-Akkerman N, Kooijman CJ, Serruys PW. Variabilities in measurement of coronary arterial dimensions resulting from variations in cineframe selection. Cathet Cardiovasc Diagn 1988; 14: 221–8.
Serruys PW, Reiber JHC, Wijns W, v.d. Brand M, Kooijman CJ, ten Katen HJ, Hugenholtz PG. Assessment of percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty by quantitative coronary angiography: Diameter versus densitometric area measurements. Am J Cardiol 1984; 54: 482–8.
Reiber JHC, Serruys PW, Slager CJ. Validation quantitation techniques of coronary and left ventricular cineangiograms. In: Reiber JHC, Serruys PW, Slager CJ (eds). Quantitative Coronary and Left Ventricular Cineangiography. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1986; 119–39.
deCesare NB, Williamson PR, Moore MB, DeBoe SF, Mancini GBJ. Establishing comprehensive quantitative criteria for detection of restenosis and remodeling after percutaneous transluminal angioplasty. Am J Cardiol 1992; 69: 77–83.
Gibson CM, Sandoz T, Stone PH, Pasternak RC, Rosner B, Sacks FM. Quantitative angiographic and statistical methods to assess serial changes in coronary luminal diameter and implications for atherosclerosis regression. Am J Cardiol 1992; 69: 1286–90.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Desmet, W., Willems, J.L., Vrolix, M. et al. Intra- and interobserver variability of a fast on-line quantitative coronary angiographic system. Int J Cardiac Imag 9, 249–256 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01137151
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01137151