Mori Shinsuke, Hirano Keisuke, Takahara Mitsuyoshi, Shirai Shigemitsu, Makino Kenji, Honda Yohsuke, Tsutsumi Masakazu, Kobayashi Norihiro, Yamawaki Masahiro, Ito Yoshiaki
Department of Cardiology, Saiseikai Yokohama City Eastern Hospital, Yokohama, Japan.
Department of Cardiology, Toyohashi Heart Center, Toyohashi, Japan.
Quant Imaging Med Surg. 2022 Jan;12(1):568-575. doi: 10.21037/qims-20-1097.
Our aim was to evaluate the accuracy of quantitative vessel analysis (QVA) in measuring the reference vessel diameter (RVD) of femoropopliteal lesions.
Between October 2014 and September 2015, 30 consecutive femoropopliteal lesions in 25 patients who underwent endovascular therapy (EVT) under intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) guidance were analyzed. RVDs measured using QVA (calibrated using a 6-Fr sheath in the common femoral artery) and QVA (calibrated using a ruler on the angiography table) were compared to those obtained using IVUS as the reference values.
The mean QVA-measured RVD was significantly larger than the mean IVUS-measured RVD (5.34±1.29 5.07±1.20 mm, P=0.001). In contrast, mean QVA-measured RVD was 4.60±1.04 mm, which was significantly smaller than both the mean IVUS- and mean QVA-measured RVD (both P<0.001). Bland-Altman analysis revealed that the 95% limits of agreement versus IVUS ranged from -0.94 to 1.49 mm for QVA and -1.69 to 0.76 mm for QVA, respectively. Agreement with tolerance of ±1.00 mm accounted for 88% of QVA and 83% of QVA (P=0.60). The difference between QVA- and IVUS-measured RVDs was inversely correlated with the distance from the table (P=0.029 for QVA and P=0.003 for QVA).
The accuracy of both QVA and QVA in measuring RVD were similarly suboptimal. Over- and under-estimation of RVD is not rare in QVA.
我们的目的是评估定量血管分析(QVA)测量股腘动脉病变参考血管直径(RVD)的准确性。
2014年10月至2015年9月期间,对25例在血管内超声(IVUS)引导下接受血管内治疗(EVT)的患者的30处连续股腘动脉病变进行分析。将使用QVA(在股总动脉中使用6F鞘管校准)和QVA(在血管造影台上使用尺子校准)测量的RVD与以IVUS测量值作为参考值进行比较。
QVA测量的平均RVD显著大于IVUS测量的平均RVD(5.34±1.29对5.07±1.20mm,P = 0.001)。相比之下,QVA测量的平均RVD为4.60±1.04mm,显著小于IVUS测量的平均RVD和QVA测量的平均RVD(P均<0.001)。Bland-Altman分析显示,与IVUS相比,QVA的95%一致性界限为-0.94至1.49mm,QVA为-1.69至0.76mm。±1.00mm公差范围内的一致性分别占QVA的88%和QVA的83%(P = 0.60)。QVA与IVUS测量的RVD之间的差异与距检查台的距离呈负相关(QVA为P = 0.029,QVA为P = 0.003)。
QVA和QVA测量RVD的准确性同样欠佳。在QVA中,RVD的高估和低估并不罕见。