Vas R, Diamond G A, Forrester J S, Whiting J S, Pfaff M J, Levisman J A, Nakano F S, Swan H J
Am Heart J. 1982 Oct;104(4 Pt 1):732-9. doi: 10.1016/0002-8703(82)90004-7.
We compared computer-enhanced digital angiography (CEDA) following pulmonary injection of 20 ml Renografin-76 (5 ml/sec) to conventional directly injected left ventriculography (LV) in 13 patients undergoing routine diagnostic catheterization. Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was determined by planimetry from end-diastolic and end-systolic images by two independent angiographers. The correlation coefficient for LVEF (CEDA vs. LV) was r = 0.75 (p less than 0.005) for observer 1 and r = 0.85 (p less than 0.0005) for observer 2. The interobserver variability for LVEF was very low, resulting in a high correlation coefficient (r = 0.91, p less than 0.0005). Three angiographers independently reviewed both the conventional and CEDA images in a random order for assessment of anterior, apical, and inferior regional wall motion, using a 6-point subjective grading system (198 determinations). The interobserver correlation for subjective assessment of regional wall motion by both LV and CEDA was poor (49% for LV and 59% for CEDA, p = NS). These poor correlations were not improved by excluding any region or angiographer from the analysis. The agreement of regional motion assessments between the two techniques was only 40%. To improve reproducibility of wall motion interpretation, an automated analysis program was developed. First the range of normal contraction was defined from pooled literature data. The movement of any segment of the left ventricular wall could then be determined in millimeters and referenced to the normal range. This method eliminated interobserver variability. In the absence of an acceptable standard of segmental wall motion to which this measurement can be compared, the accuracy of this objective format could not be determined. We conclude that CEDA images allow accurate determination of ejection fraction and that the large interobserver variability of subjective regional wall motion analysis can be overcome by employing more objective formats.
我们将13例接受常规诊断性心导管检查的患者,在经肺动脉注入20ml泛影葡胺-76(5ml/秒)后的计算机增强数字血管造影(CEDA)与传统的直接注射左心室造影(LV)进行了比较。由两名独立的血管造影师通过面积测量法,根据舒张末期和收缩末期图像确定左心室射血分数(LVEF)。观察者1测得的LVEF(CEDA与LV)相关系数r = 0.75(p<0.005),观察者2测得的相关系数r = 0.85(p<0.0005)。LVEF的观察者间变异性非常低,相关系数较高(r = 0.91,p<0.0005)。三名血管造影师以随机顺序独立审查传统和CEDA图像,使用6分主观评分系统评估前壁、心尖和下壁区域的壁运动(共198次测定)。LV和CEDA对区域壁运动主观评估的观察者间相关性较差(LV为49%,CEDA为59%,p = 无显著性差异)。通过在分析中排除任何区域或血管造影师,这些较差的相关性并未得到改善。两种技术之间区域运动评估的一致性仅为40%。为提高壁运动解释的可重复性,开发了一个自动分析程序。首先,根据汇总的文献数据定义正常收缩范围。然后可以确定左心室壁任何节段的运动,以毫米为单位,并参照正常范围。这种方法消除了观察者间的变异性。由于缺乏可与之比较的节段壁运动的可接受标准,无法确定这种客观形式的准确性。我们得出结论,CEDA图像可准确测定射血分数,并且采用更客观的形式可以克服主观区域壁运动分析中观察者间的巨大变异性。