Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA.
J Neurointerv Surg. 2013 Jul;5(4):361-5. doi: 10.1136/neurintsurg-2012-010341. Epub 2012 May 28.
Digital subtraction angiography (DSA) is the gold standard imaging for detection of in-stent restenosis (ISR) but there is limited literature on optimal non-invasive surveillance imaging. In this study, the ability of CT angiography (CTA) and MR angiography (MRA) compared with DSA in recognizing ISR was assessed.
A single center database of patients treated with stent implantation for ICAD was accessed. All patients who underwent follow-up imaging with DSA paired with either MRA or CTA within 30 days were included. Two angiography readers and two non-invasive imaging readers measured restenosis with a submillimeter digital caliper. ISR was categorized as: none/minimal, mild (<50%), moderate (≥50-70%) or severe (≥70%). Analysis was performed with weighted κ statistics.
17 cases of individual stents that underwent surveillance imaging with paired DSA and CTA and five stents with paired DSA and MRA were identified. Of those undergoing DSA and CTA, inter-reader agreement produced κ=0.68 (95% CI 0.40 to 0.95) for DSA and κ=0.75 (95% CI 0.55 to 0.95) for CTA. Agreement across CTA and DSA was κ=0.36 (95% CI 0.26 to 0.52). Of those undergoing DSA and MRA, inter-reader agreement produced κ=0.71 (95% CI 0.27 to 1.00) for DSA and κ=1.00 (95% CI 1.00 to 1.00) for MRA. Agreement across MRA and DSA was κ=0.34 (95% CI 0.18 to 0.51).
Good inter-reader agreement exists within DSA, CTA and MRA. However, when comparing non-invasive imaging (CTA and MRA) with DSA, only fair agreement exists. These data suggest that CTA and MRA are not comparable to DSA for evaluation of ISR.
数字减影血管造影(DSA)是检测支架内再狭窄(ISR)的金标准成像方法,但关于最佳非侵入性监测成像的文献有限。在这项研究中,评估了 CT 血管造影(CTA)和磁共振血管造影(MRA)与 DSA 相比识别 ISR 的能力。
访问了一个单中心接受支架植入治疗 ICAD 的患者数据库。所有在 30 天内接受 DSA 随访成像并与 MRA 或 CTA 配对的患者均被纳入研究。两名血管造影读者和两名非侵入性成像读者使用亚毫米数字卡尺测量再狭窄程度。ISR 分为:无/轻度(<50%)、中度(≥50-70%)或重度(≥70%)。采用加权κ统计分析进行分析。
共确定了 17 例接受 DSA 和 CTA 配对监测成像的单个支架和 5 例接受 DSA 和 MRA 配对监测成像的支架。在接受 DSA 和 CTA 的患者中,两位读者之间的一致性产生了 DSA 的κ=0.68(95%CI 0.40 至 0.95)和 CTA 的κ=0.75(95%CI 0.55 至 0.95)。CTA 和 DSA 之间的一致性为κ=0.36(95%CI 0.26 至 0.52)。在接受 DSA 和 MRA 的患者中,两位读者之间的一致性产生了 DSA 的κ=0.71(95%CI 0.27 至 1.00)和 MRA 的κ=1.00(95%CI 1.00 至 1.00)。MRA 和 DSA 之间的一致性为κ=0.34(95%CI 0.18 至 0.51)。
DSA、CTA 和 MRA 之间存在良好的读者间一致性。然而,当将非侵入性成像(CTA 和 MRA)与 DSA 进行比较时,仅存在适度的一致性。这些数据表明,CTA 和 MRA 与 DSA 相比,在评估 ISR 方面并不具有可比性。