Suppr超能文献

在接受冠状动脉血管成形术治疗的患者中,由放射技师、初级和高级介入心脏病专家对冠状动脉狭窄进行导管实验室比较评估。

Comparative cath-lab assessment of coronary stenosis by radiology technician, junior and senior interventional cardiologist in patients treated with coronary angioplasty.

作者信息

Brunetti Natale Daniele, Delli Carri Felice, Ruggiero Maria Assunta, Cuculo Andrea, Ruggiero Antonio, Ziccardi Luigi, De Gennaro Luisa, Di Biase Matteo

机构信息

Cardiology Department, University of Foggia Foggia Italy.

出版信息

Interv Med Appl Sci. 2014 Mar;6(1):26-30. doi: 10.1556/IMAS.6.2014.1.4. Epub 2014 Mar 14.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Exact quantification of plaque extension during coronary angioplasty (PCI) usually falls on interventional cardiologist (IC). Quantitative coronary stenosis assessment (QCA) may be possibly committed to the radiology technician (RT), who usually supports cath-lab nurse and IC during PCI. We therefore sought to investigate the reliability of QCA performed by RT in comparison with IC.

METHODS

Forty-four consecutive patients with acute coronary syndrome underwent PCI; target coronary vessel size beneath target coronary lesion (S) and target coronary lesion length (L) were assessed by the RT, junior IC (JIC), and senior IC (SIC) and then compared. SIC evaluation, which determined the final stent selection for coronary stenting, was considered as a reference benchmark.

RESULTS

RT performance with QCA support in assessing target vessel size and target lesion length was not significantly different from SIC (r = 0.46, p < 0.01; r = 0.64, p < 0.001, respectively) as well as JIC (r = 0.79, r = 0.75, p < 0.001, respectively). JIC performance was significantly better than RT in assessing target vessel size (p < 0.05), while not significant when assessing target lesion length.

CONCLUSIONS

RT may reliably assess target lesion by using adequate QCA software in the cath-lab in case of PCI; RT performance does not differ from SIC.

摘要

背景

在冠状动脉血管成形术(PCI)期间,对斑块扩展进行精确量化通常由介入心脏病专家(IC)负责。冠状动脉狭窄定量评估(QCA)可能由放射技师(RT)进行,在PCI期间,放射技师通常协助导管室护士和介入心脏病专家。因此,我们试图研究放射技师与介入心脏病专家相比进行QCA的可靠性。

方法

44例连续的急性冠状动脉综合征患者接受了PCI;由放射技师、初级介入心脏病专家(JIC)和高级介入心脏病专家(SIC)评估目标冠状动脉病变下方的目标冠状动脉血管大小(S)和目标冠状动脉病变长度(L),然后进行比较。将确定冠状动脉支架最终选择的SIC评估作为参考基准。

结果

放射技师在QCA支持下评估目标血管大小和目标病变长度的表现与SIC相比无显著差异(r分别为0.46,p<0.01;r为0.64,p<0.001),与JIC相比也无显著差异(r分别为0.79、0.75,p<0.001)。在评估目标血管大小时,JIC的表现明显优于放射技师(p<0.05),而在评估目标病变长度时无显著差异。

结论

在PCI情况下,放射技师在导管室使用适当的QCA软件可可靠地评估目标病变;放射技师的表现与高级介入心脏病专家无异。

相似文献

本文引用的文献

1
Novel QCA methodologies and angiographic scores.新型 QCA 方法学和血管造影评分。
Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2011 Feb;27(2):157-65. doi: 10.1007/s10554-010-9787-9. Epub 2011 Feb 20.
4
Comparative in-vitro validation of eight first- and second-generation quantitative coronary angiography systems.
Coron Artery Dis. 1997 Feb;8(2):83-90. doi: 10.1097/00019501-199702000-00003.
5
Sources of error in quantitative coronary angiography.
Cathet Cardiovasc Diagn. 1993 Aug;29(4):314-21. doi: 10.1002/ccd.1810290416.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验