Lesperance J, Hudon G, White C W, Laurier J, Waters D
Department of Radiology, Montreal Heart Institute, Quebec, Canada.
Am J Cardiol. 1989 Sep 1;64(8):462-5. doi: 10.1016/0002-9149(89)90421-9.
Quantitative coronary arteriographic measurements were compared in 2 orthogonal views with the view that clearly showed the stenosis at its most severe in 147 lesions from 147 patients before, immediately after and 6 months after PTCA. In 21 of 147 patients (14%), 2 views could not be measured for technical reasons, even though all angiographers had tried to film 2 views. Lesion severity was slightly worse for 1 compared with 2 views (3.3 +/- 3.3% before PTCA, 3.6 +/- 3.8% after PTCA and 3.1 +/- 3.8% at follow-up). Similarly, minimal diameter was less for 1 view (0.11 +/- 0.09 mm before PTCA, 0.15 +/- 0.12 mm after PTCA and 0.13 +/- 0.09 mm at 6 months). When this systematic difference was taken into account, the 2 methods were within +/- 0.1 mm for minimal diameter in 288 of 376 measurements (77%) and within +/- 0.2 mm in 96%. For percent diameter stenosis the 2 methods were within +/- 5% in 90% and within +/- 10% in all but 2.7% (10 of 376). Thus, for routine clinical assessment, measurement of 1 view is adequate; for research purposes orthogonal views may sometimes be required.
对147例患者的147处病变在PTCA术前、术后即刻及术后6个月时，在两个正交视图下进行冠状动脉定量血管造影测量，并与能清晰显示最严重狭窄的视图进行比较。在147例患者中的21例（14%），尽管所有血管造影技师都尝试拍摄两个视图，但由于技术原因无法测量两个视图。单视图测量的病变严重程度略高于双视图（PTCA术前为3.3±3.3%，术后为3.6±3.8%，随访时为3.1±3.8%）。同样，单视图测量的最小直径更小（PTCA术前为0.11±0.09mm，术后为0.15±0.12mm，6个月时为0.13±0.09mm）。考虑到这种系统差异后，在376次测量中的288次（77%），两种方法测量的最小直径相差±0.1mm以内，96%相差±0.2mm以内。对于直径狭窄百分比，两种方法在90%的测量中相差±5%以内，除2.7%（376次中的10次）外，所有测量相差±10%以内。因此，对于常规临床评估，单视图测量就足够了；对于研究目的，有时可能需要正交视图。
