Siegel R J, Ariani M, Fishbein M C, Chae J S, Park J C, Maurer G, Forrester J S
Division of Cardiology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA 90048-0750.
Circulation. 1991 Jul;84(1):109-17. doi: 10.1161/01.cir.84.1.109.
To establish a histopathologic basis for angioscopic and ultrasound image interpretation we studied 70 postmortem human arterial segments in vitro.
We used 7- to 9-French fiber-optic angioscopes and 20- to 30-MHz intravascular ultrasound imaging catheters. Three observers assigned an angioscopic and ultrasound image classification to each vessel segment. The image and histological classification categories were then compared. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of both methods separately or in combination for normal vessels were each greater than or equal to 95%. The predictive value was better for angioscopy than for ultrasound due to incorrect ultrasound interpretations of normal anatomy in the presence of thrombus. For stable atheroma the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of the individual methods were each greater than 90%. However, both angioscopy and ultrasound had classification errors in that disrupted atheroma was identified and classified as stable atheroma. Consequently, the predictive value was 74% for angioscopy and 78% for ultrasound. For disrupted atheroma the sensitivities for angioscopy and ultrasound were only moderate (73% and 81%, respectively), whereas the specificity, accuracy, and predictive value were each high (greater than 90%). For thrombus detection, the specificity, accuracy, and predictive value were high (greater than 93%) for each method. The sensitivity of angioscopy was 100%. However, sensitivity was lower for ultrasound (57%) due to false-negative interpretation of laminar clots in normal vessels and an inability to distinguish disrupted or stable atheroma from intraluminal thrombus.
Contingency analyses showed that each imaging method alone or combined had significant agreement with the results obtained from histology (p less than 0.001). When assessing all cases in which angioscopy and ultrasound were concordant, there was a 92% agreement with the histological classification.
为了建立血管镜检查和超声图像解读的组织病理学基础,我们在体外研究了70个死后人体动脉节段。
我们使用7至9法式光纤血管镜和20至30兆赫的血管内超声成像导管。三名观察者对每个血管节段进行血管镜和超声图像分类。然后比较图像和组织学分类类别。两种方法单独或联合用于正常血管时的敏感性、特异性和准确性均大于或等于95%。由于在存在血栓的情况下对正常解剖结构的超声解读错误,血管镜检查的预测价值优于超声检查。对于稳定型动脉粥样硬化,各单独方法的敏感性、特异性和准确性均大于90%。然而,血管镜检查和超声检查都存在分类错误,即破裂的动脉粥样硬化被识别并分类为稳定型动脉粥样硬化。因此,血管镜检查的预测价值为74%,超声检查为78%。对于破裂的动脉粥样硬化,血管镜检查和超声检查的敏感性仅为中等水平(分别为73%和81%),而特异性、准确性和预测价值均较高(大于90%)。对于血栓检测,每种方法的特异性、准确性和预测价值都很高(大于93%)。血管镜检查的敏感性为100%。然而,超声检查的敏感性较低(57%),这是由于对正常血管中层状血栓的假阴性解读以及无法将破裂或稳定的动脉粥样硬化与管腔内血栓区分开来。
列联分析表明,每种成像方法单独或联合使用与组织学结果均有显著一致性(p小于0.001)。在评估血管镜检查和超声检查结果一致的所有病例时,与组织学分类的一致性为92%。