Atar D, Saunamäki K
Department of Medicine, University Hospital (Rigshospitalet), Copenhagen, Denmark.
Cardiology. 1994;85(2):94-100. doi: 10.1159/000176655.
This study compares the use of hand-held calipers to automated quantitative coronary arteriography in assessing coronary artery stenosis severity. 48 stenoses in the visually estimated range of 30-90% were evaluated in two orthogonal projections. Absolute stenosis dimensions and calculated transstenotic pressure gradient (PG) were compared. Hand-held calipers were of limited value in assessing absolute stenosis dimensions (SD = 0.32 mm, r = 0.80). However, the correlation found in the assessment of percent diameter stenosis (SD = 7.7%, r = 0.83) and PG (SD = 1.3 mm Hg, r = 0.83) was acceptable. In particular, the allocation into hemodynamically significant (n = 30) and nonsignificant (n = 18) stenoses, according to the criterion of a PG > 30 mm Hg, was accomplished identically by both methods.
本研究比较了在评估冠状动脉狭窄严重程度时,手持卡尺与自动定量冠状动脉造影术的应用情况。在两个正交投影中对视觉估计范围为30%-90%的48处狭窄进行了评估。比较了绝对狭窄尺寸和计算得出的跨狭窄压力梯度(PG)。手持卡尺在评估绝对狭窄尺寸方面价值有限(标准差=0.32毫米,相关系数=0.80)。然而,在评估直径狭窄百分比(标准差=7.7%,相关系数=0.83)和PG(标准差=1.3毫米汞柱,相关系数=0.83)时发现的相关性是可以接受的。特别是,根据PG>30毫米汞柱的标准,两种方法对血流动力学显著(n=30)和不显著(n=18)狭窄的分类结果相同。