Gouya Hervé, Varenne Olivier, Trinquart Ludovic, Touzé Emmanuel, Vignaux Olivier, Spaulding Christian, Mas Jean-Louis, Sablayrolles Jean-Louis
Department of Radiology, University René Descartes Paris V, Hôpital Cochin, 27 rue du Faubourg Saint Jacques, 75679 Paris Cedex 14, France.
Radiology. 2009 Aug;252(2):377-85. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2522081271. Epub 2009 Jun 22.
To assess the diagnostic accuracy of multisection (64-section) computed tomography (CT) versus coronary angiography in detection of and assignment of grades for coronary artery stenoses in a high-risk population and to investigate causes for discordance between the two.
The protocol was approved by the local ethics committee. Patients gave informed consent. The study included 114 patients (103 men, 11 women; mean age, 63 years +/- 8.2 [standard deviation]) with potential myocardial ischemia. Multisection CT images were interpreted independently by two radiologists with unequal experience in reading coronary CT angiograms. Diagnostic performance of 64-section CT in detection of stenoses of 50% or more was assessed per patient, per artery, and per segment. Interrater agreement was assessed by using the Cohen kappa coefficient. Agreement between 64-section CT and coronary angiography for assigning grades to stenoses was assessed by using Bland-Altman analysis.
Sixty-eight percent of patients had stenoses of 50% or more. Good interrater agreement was found, with kappa values of 0.77-0.85. For the most experienced radiologist, the sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, and negative likelihood ratio were 73.4%, 95.0%, 14.7, and 0.28 per segment, 95.2%, 94.7%, 18.0, and 0.05 per artery, and 100%, 89.2%, 9.26, and zero per patient, respectively. Discordance between 64-section CT and coronary angiography was related to either under- or overestimation of the degree of stenosis, anatomic misclassification, and coronary artery segments that were not assessable at 64-section CT. Bland-Altman analysis showed poor agreement, especially for intermediate stenosis (mean bias, 1.3%; 95% limits of agreement: -27.3%, 29.9%).
Despite excellent sensitivity and negative likelihood ratios in a per-patient or per-vessel analysis, some coronary artery stenosis remained misdiagnosed with 64-section CT, resulting in limited sensitivity on a per-segment basis owing to anatomic discordance and failure to accurately quantify intermediate stenosis.
评估多排(64排)计算机断层扫描(CT)与冠状动脉造影在高危人群中检测冠状动脉狭窄及分级的诊断准确性,并调查两者之间不一致的原因。
该方案经当地伦理委员会批准。患者均签署知情同意书。本研究纳入了114例有潜在心肌缺血的患者(103例男性,11例女性;平均年龄63岁±8.2[标准差])。两名阅读冠状动脉CT血管造影经验不同的放射科医生独立解读多排CT图像。对每位患者、每条动脉和每个节段评估64排CT检测50%及以上狭窄的诊断性能。采用Cohen kappa系数评估阅片者间一致性。采用Bland-Altman分析评估64排CT与冠状动脉造影在狭窄分级上的一致性。
68%的患者存在50%及以上的狭窄。发现阅片者间一致性良好,kappa值为0.77 - 0.85。对于经验最丰富的放射科医生,每个节段的敏感性、特异性、阳性似然比和阴性似然比分别为73.4%、95.0%、14.7和0.28,每条动脉分别为95.2%、94.7%、18.0和0.05,每位患者分别为100%、89.2%、9.26和零。64排CT与冠状动脉造影之间的不一致与狭窄程度的低估或高估、解剖学错误分类以及64排CT无法评估的冠状动脉节段有关。Bland-Altman分析显示一致性较差,尤其是对于中度狭窄(平均偏差1.3%;95%一致性界限:-27.3%,29.9%)。
尽管在每位患者或每条血管分析中具有出色的敏感性和阴性似然比,但64排CT仍误诊了一些冠状动脉狭窄,由于解剖学不一致和无法准确量化中度狭窄,导致每个节段的敏感性有限。