Compression of digital coronary angiograms does not affect visual or quantitative assessment of coronary artery stenosis severity

American Journal of Cardiology

Volumn 78, Issue 2, 1996, Pages 131-135

  Rigolin, Vera H ^a   Robiolio, Paul A ^a   Spero, Laurence A ^a   Harrawood, Brian P ^a   Morris, Kenneth G ^a   Fortin, Donald F ^a   Baker, William A ^a   Bashore, Thomas M ^a   Cusma, Jack T ^a  

^a DUKE UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANGIOCARDIOGRAPHY; ARTICLE; COMPRESSION; CONTROLLED STUDY; CORONARY ARTERY OBSTRUCTION; DIGITAL SUBTRACTION ANGIOGRAPHY; DISEASE SEVERITY; HUMAN; IMAGE ANALYSIS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUANTITATIVE DIAGNOSIS; REPRODUCIBILITY;

EID: 0030035671     PISSN: 00029149     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0002-9149(96)00300-1     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Mancini GBJ. Digital coronary angiography: advantages and limitations. In: Reiber JHC, Serruys PW, eds. Quantitative Coronary Angiography. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1991:23-42.
2. Brennecke R, Lang M, Fritsch JP, Erbel R, Meyer J. A framework for PACS development in cardiology. IEEE Comput Cardiol 1992:259-261.
3. Cusma JT, Fortin DF, Spero LA, Groshong BR, Bashore TM. Which media are most likely to solve the archival problem? Int J Cardiac Imaging 1994;10:165-175.
4. Pennebaker WB, Mitchell JL. JPEG Still Image Data Compression Standard. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1993.
5. Rabbani M, Jones PW. Image compression techniques for medical diagnostic imaging systems. J Digit Imaging 1991;4:65-78.
6. Bramble JM, Huang HK, Murphy MD. Image data compression. Invest Radiol 1988:23:707-712.
7. Reiber JHC, Serruys PW. Quantitative coronary angiography. In: Marcus ML, Skorton DJ, Schelbert HR, Wolf GL, eds. Cardiac Imaging. Philadelphia: WB Saunders, 1991:211-280.
8. Hermiller JH. Cusma JT, Spero LA, Fortin DF, Harding MB, Bashore TM. Quantitative and qualitative coronary angiographic analysis: review of methods, utility, and limitations. Cathet Cardiovasc Diagn 1992;25:110-131.
9. Cusma JT, Spero LA, van der Geest RJ, Bashore TM, Morris KG. Application of quantitative coronary angiography in a cineless environment: in vivo assessment of a fully automated system for clinical use. Am Heart J 1995;129:300-306.
10. Landis JR, Koch GG. An application of hierarchical kappa-type statistics in the assessment of majority agreement among multiple observers. Biometrics 1977;33:363-374.
11. Detre KM, Wright E, Murphy ML, Takaro T. Observer agreement in evaluating coronary angiograms. Circulation 1975;52:979-985.
12. Zir LM, Miller SW, Dinsmore RE, Gilbert JP, Harthorne JW. Interobserver variability in coronary angiography. Circulation 1976;53:627-632.
13. DeRouen TA, Murray JA, Owen W. Variability in the analysis of coronary angiograms. Circulation 1977;55:324-328.
14. Beauman GJ, Vogel RA. Accuracy of individual and panel visual interpretations of coronary arteriograms: implications for clinical decisions. J Am Coll Cardiol 1990;16:108-113.
15. Koning G, van Meurs B, Reiber JH. Effect of data compression on quantitative coronary measurements. Cathet Cardiovasc Diagn 1995;34:175-185.
16. Reiber JH, van der Zwet PM, Koning G, von Land CD, van Meurs B, Gerbrands JJ, Buis B, van Voorthuisen AE. Accuracy and precision of quantitative digital coronary arteriography: observer-, short-, and medium-term variabilities. Cathet Cardiovasc Diagn 1993;28:187-198.