Cho Su-Hee, Lee Ji-Ye, Ryu Kyeong-Hwa, Suh Dae Chul
Department of Neurosurgery, Gangneung Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Department of Radiology, Soonchunhyang University Bucheon Hospital, Gyeonggi-do, Korea.
Neurointervention. 2018 Mar;13(1):48-53. doi: 10.5469/neuroint.2018.13.1.48. Epub 2018 Mar 2.
False positive diagnoses of cerebral aneurysm via magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) screening may increase unnecessary cerebral catheter angiography. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of medical liability on medical decision-making during radiologic interpretation.
We included 56 consecutive patients who were referred with suspected aneurysm based on MRA or computed tomography angiography (CTA) and showed no aneurysm on subsequent digital subtraction angiography (DSA). MRA and CTA were reviewed twice by two neuroradiology fellows who were blind as to whether the suspected lesions were true aneurysms or not. The second review was repeated after proposing that their decision was subject to legal liability and they would be responsible for medico-legal problems related to their diagnoses. Diagnostic differences based on each review were analyzed, focusing on changes in false positive diagnosis rates.
A total of 63 suspected aneurysmal lesions detected via MRA or CTA were found to be negative based on DSA. At first review, 32 lesions were diagnosed as true aneurysms by observer 1 and 27 by observer 2, corresponding to false positive rates of 51% and 43% respectively. At the second review, 39 lesions (62%) were diagnosed by observer 1, and 30 (48%) by observer 2. Thus, there was an overall increase in false positive aneurysm diagnosis of 11% for observer 1 and 5% for observer 2, after emphasizing their responsibilities in the context of medical litigation.
Concerns about medical liability could result in increased false positive diagnoses of cerebral aneurysms via MRA screening. Whether repeated follow-up of the suspected lesion or catheter angiographic confirmation is better with regard to long-term patient outcomes requires further study.
通过磁共振血管造影(MRA)筛查对脑动脉瘤进行假阳性诊断可能会增加不必要的脑血管造影检查。本研究的目的是调查医疗责任对放射学解读过程中医疗决策的影响。
我们纳入了56例连续患者,这些患者基于MRA或计算机断层血管造影(CTA)被转诊怀疑患有动脉瘤,但在随后的数字减影血管造影(DSA)中未发现动脉瘤。两名神经放射科住院医师对MRA和CTA进行了两次复查,他们对疑似病变是否为真正的动脉瘤并不知情。在提出他们的决定可能会承担法律责任且要对与诊断相关的医疗法律问题负责后,再次进行了第二次复查。分析了每次复查的诊断差异,重点关注假阳性诊断率的变化。
基于DSA,通过MRA或CTA检测到的63个疑似动脉瘤病变均为阴性。在首次复查时,观察者1将32个病变诊断为真正的动脉瘤,观察者2诊断为27个,对应的假阳性率分别为51%和43%。在第二次复查时,观察者1诊断出39个病变(62%),观察者2诊断出30个(48%)。因此,在强调他们在医疗诉讼中的责任后,观察者1的脑动脉瘤假阳性诊断总体增加了11%,观察者2增加了5%。
对医疗责任的担忧可能会导致通过MRA筛查增加脑动脉瘤的假阳性诊断。对于长期患者预后而言,对疑似病变进行重复随访还是导管血管造影确认更好,这需要进一步研究。