Suppr超能文献

药物洗脱支架治疗及随访的定量冠状动脉造影分析中核心实验室间及内部的变异性

Inter- and intra-core laboratory variability in the quantitative coronary angiography analysis for drug-eluting stent treatment and follow up.

作者信息

Ito Shigenori, Kinoshita Kanako, Endo Akiko, Kami Ryoko, Kotake Yuko, Nakamura Masato

机构信息

Division of Cardiology, Sankuro Hospital, 7-80 Kosaka-cho, Toyota-shi, Aichi-ken, 471-0035, Japan.

Japan Cardiovascular Imaging Core Laboratory, Tokyo, Japan.

出版信息

Ther Adv Cardiovasc Dis. 2020 Jan-Dec;14:1753944720958982. doi: 10.1177/1753944720958982.

Abstract

AIM

To evaluate inter-core laboratory variability of quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) parameters in comparison with intra-core laboratory variability in a randomized controlled trial evaluating drug-eluting stents.

METHODS

A total of 50 patients with 62 coronary lesions were analyzed by four analysis experts belonging to an Angiographic Core Laboratory (ACL: 1 expert) and a Cardiovascular Imaging Core Laboratory (CICL: 3 experts). QCA was based on the same standard operating procedure, but selections of projection and cine frames were at the discretion of each analyst. Inter- and intra-core laboratory variabilities were evaluated by accuracy, precision, Bland Altman analysis, and coefficient of variation.

RESULTS

Pre-MLD (minimal lumen diameter) was significantly smaller in results from ACL than those from all CICL experts. Number of analyzed projections did not affect pre-MLD results. Acute gain was larger in ACL than in CICL2. No significant difference was observed in late loss and loss index between inter-core laboratories. Agreement between core labs in the Bland-Altman analysis for each QCA parameter was as follows (mean difference, 95% limits of agreement): pre-MLD (-0.32, -0.74 to 0.10), stent MLD (0.08, -0.28 to 0.44), acute gain (0.22, -0.44 to 0.88), and late loss (-0.07, -0.69 to 0.55). Agreement between analysts in CICL (mean difference, 95% limits of agreement) was: pre MLD (-0.03, -0.37 to 0.31), stent MLD (0.15, -0.15 to 0.45), acute gain (0.05, -0.45 to 0.55), and late loss (0.04, -0.52 to 0.60). The widest limits of agreement among three analyses were shown in both analyses. Width of limited agreement in the intra-core laboratory analysis tended to be smaller than the inter-core laboratory analysis with these parameters. Coefficient of variation tended to be larger in lesion length (LL), acute gain, late loss, and loss index in inter- and in intra- core laboratory comparisons.

CONCLUSION

Inter-core laboratory QCA variability in late loss and loss index analysis could be similar to intra-core laboratory variability, but more strict alignment between core laboratories would be necessary for initial procedural data analysis.

摘要

目的

在一项评估药物洗脱支架的随机对照试验中,评估定量冠状动脉造影(QCA)参数在核心实验室之间的变异性,并与核心实验室内的变异性进行比较。

方法

共有50例患者的62处冠状动脉病变由血管造影核心实验室(ACL:1名专家)和心血管影像核心实验室(CICL:3名专家)的4名分析专家进行分析。QCA基于相同的标准操作程序,但投照角度和电影帧的选择由每位分析师自行决定。通过准确性、精密度、布兰德-奥特曼分析和变异系数评估核心实验室间和核心实验室内的变异性。

结果

ACL得出的预最小管腔直径(MLD)结果显著小于所有CICL专家得出的结果。分析的投照角度数量不影响预MLD结果。ACL得出的急性获得值大于CICL2。核心实验室间在晚期丢失和丢失指数方面未观察到显著差异。核心实验室在每个QCA参数的布兰德-奥特曼分析中的一致性如下(平均差异,95%一致性界限):预MLD(-0.32,-0.74至0.10),支架MLD(0.08,-0.28至0.44),急性获得(0.22,-0.44至0.88),以及晚期丢失(-0.07,-0.69至0.55)。CICL中分析师之间的一致性(平均差异,95%一致性界限)为:预MLD(-0.03,-0.37至0.31),支架MLD(0.15,-0.15至0.45),急性获得(0.05,-0.45至0.55),以及晚期丢失(0.04,-0.52至0.60)。在这两种分析中,三项分析中一致性界限最宽的情况均有体现。在这些参数方面,核心实验室内分析中一致性界限的宽度往往小于核心实验室间分析。在核心实验室间和核心实验室内比较中,病变长度(LL)、急性获得、晚期丢失和丢失指数的变异系数往往更大。

结论

在晚期丢失和丢失指数分析中,核心实验室间的QCA变异性可能与核心实验室内的变异性相似,但对于初始程序数据分析,核心实验室之间需要更严格的一致性。

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