Improving detection of coronary morphological features from digital angiograms: Effect of stenosis-stabilized display

Circulation

Volumn 89, Issue 6, 1994, Pages 2700-2709

  Eigler, Neal L ^a   Eckstein, Miguel P ^b   Mahrer, Kenneth N ^b   Whiting, James S ^b  

^a CEDARS SINAI MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^b NONE

Author keywords

angiography; imaging; stenosis

Indexed keywords

ANGIOCARDIOGRAPHY; ARTICLE; COMPUTER SIMULATION; CORONARY ARTERY OBSTRUCTION; CORONARY ARTERY THROMBOSIS; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIGITAL SUBTRACTION ANGIOGRAPHY; HUMAN; IMAGE DISPLAY; IMAGE QUALITY; PRIORITY JOURNAL;

EID: 0028283827     PISSN: 00097322     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1161/01.CIR.89.6.2700     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Ellis S, Vandormael M, Cowley M, DiSciascio G, Deligonul U, Topol E, Bulle T, and the Multivessel Angioplasty Prognosis Study Group. Coronary morphologic and clinical determinants of procedural outcome with angioplasty for multivessel coronary disease: implications for patient selection. Circulation. 1990;82: 1193-1202.
2. Ellis SG, Cowley MJ, DiSciascio G, Deligonul U, Topol EJ, Bulle TM, Vandormael MG, and the Multivessel Angioplasty Prognosis Study Group. Determinants of 2-year outcome after coronary angioplasty in patients with multivessel disease on the basis of comprehensive preprocedural evaluation: implications for patient selection. Circulation. 1991;83:1905-1914.
3. Myler R, Shaw R, Stertzer S, Hecht H, Ryan C, Rosenblum J, Cumberland D, Murphy M, Hansell H, Hidalgo B. Lesion morphology and coronary angioplasty: current experience and analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1992;19:1641-1652.
4. Huber M, Fishman Mooney J, Madison J, Mooney M. Use of a morphological classification to predict clinical outcome after dissection from coronary angioplasty. Am J Cardiol. 1991;68: 467-471.
5. Ellis S, De Cesare N, Pinkerton C, Whitlow P, King S, Ghazzal Z, Kereiakes D, Popma J, Menke K, Topol E, Holmes D. Relation of stenosis morphology and clinical presentation to the procedural results of directional coronary atherectomy. Circulation. 1991;84: 644-653.
6. Ghazzal Z, Hearn J, Litvack F, Goldenberg T, Kent K, Eigler N, Douglas J, King S. Morphological predictors of acute complications after percutaneous excimer laser coronary angioplasty. Results of a comprehensive angiographic analysis: importance of the eccentricity index. Circulation. 1992;86:820-827.
7. Mizuno K, Kurita A, Imazeki N. Pathological findings after percutaneous transluminal coronary angiplplasty. Br Heart J. 1984;52: 588-590.
8. Uchida Y, Hasegawa K, Kawamura K, Shibuya I. Angioscopic observation of the coronary luminal changes induced by percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty. Am Heart J. 1989;117: 769-776.
9. Sherman CT, Litvack F, Grundfest W, Lee M, Hiekey A, Chaux A, Kass R, Blanche C, Matloff J, Morgenstern L, Ganz W, Swan HJC, Forrester J. Coronary angioscopy in patients with unstable angina pectoris. N Engl J Med. 1986;315:913-919.
10. Ramee SR, White CJ, Collins TJ, Mesa JE, Murgo JP. Percutaneous angioscopy during coronary angioplasty using a steerable microangioscope. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1991;17:100-108.
11. Honye J, Mahon DJ, Jain A, White CJ, Ramee SR, Wallis JB, al-Zarka A, Tobis JM. Morphological effects of coronary balloon angioplasty in vivo assessed by intravascular ultrasound imaging. Circulation. 1992;85:1012-1025.
12. Whiting JS, Honig D, Carterette E, Eigler N. Observer performance in dynamic displays: effect of frame rate on visual signal detection in noisy images. SPIE Proc. 1991;1453:165-167.
13. Burgess AE. On sampling statistics in observer performance studies. Proc SPIE. 1989;1137:190-197.
14. Hacker MJ, Ratcliff R. A revised table of d' for M-alternative forced choice. Percept Psychophys. 1979;26:168-170.
15. Legge .GE, Kersten D, Burgess AE. Contrast discrimination in noise, J Opt Soc Am. 1987;4:391-403.
16. Keppel G. Design and Analysis: A Researcher's Handbook. 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall; 1982.
17. Wagner RF, Brown DG. Unified SNR analysis of medical imaging systems. Phys Med Biol. 1985;30:489-518.
18. Burgess AE, Wagner RF, Jennings RJ, Barlow HB. Efficiency of human visual signal detection. Science. 1981;214:93-94.
19. Ishida M, Doi K, Loo L-N, Metz CE, Lehr JL. Digital image processing: effect on detectability of simulated low-contrast radiographic patterns. Radiology. 1984;150:569-575.
20. Chesters MS. Human visual perception and ROC methodology in medical imaging. Phys Med Biol. 1992;37:1433-1476.
21. Fleming RM, Kirkeeide RL, Smalling RW, Gould KL. Patterns in visual interpretation of coronary arteriograms as detected by quantitative coronary arteriography. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1991;18:945-951.
22. Tanner WP, Birdsall TG. Definitions of d' and η as psychophysical measures. J Acoust Soc Am. 1958;30:922-928.
23. Ohara K, Doi K, Metz CE, Giger ML. Investigation of basic imaging properties in digital radiography, 13: effect of simple structured noise on the detectability of simulated stenotic lesions. Med Phys. 1989;16:14-21.