Variability of quantitative coronary angiography: An evaluation of on-site versus core laboratory analysis

International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging

Volumn 19, Issue 6, 2003, Pages 457-464

  Moer, Rasmus ^a   Van Weert, Anton W M ^b   Myreng, Yngvar ^a   Mølstad, Per ^a  

^a Feiring Heart Clinic   (Norway)

^b Heart Core BV   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Clinical trials; Core laboratory QCA; Variability

Indexed keywords

ANGIOCARDIOGRAPHY; ARTERY DIAMETER; ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; CORONARY ARTERY DISEASE; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; LABORATORY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; RESTENOSIS; STENT; VALIDATION PROCESS;

CHI-SQUARE DISTRIBUTION; CORONARY ANGIOGRAPHY; CORONARY DISEASE; HUMANS; OBSERVER VARIATION; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; STATISTICS, NONPARAMETRIC;

EID: 0346329755     PISSN: 01679899     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1023/B:CAIM.0000004327.52633.d2     Document Type: Article

References (10)

1. Scanlon PJ, Faxon DP, Audet AM, et al. ACC/AHA guidelines for coronary angiography. A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on practice guidelines (Committee on Coronary Angiography). Developed in collaboration with the Society for Cardiac Angiography and Interventions. J Am Coll Cardiol 1999; 33: 1756-1824.
2. Moer R, Myreng Y, Molstad P, et al. Stenting in small coronary arteries (SISCA) trial. A randomized comparison between balloon angioplasty and the heparin-coated beStent. J Am Coll Cardiol 2001; 38: 1598-1603.
3. Hausleiter J, Nolte CW, Jost S, Wiese B, Sturm M, Lichtlen PR. Comparison of different quantitative coronary analysis systems: ARTREK, CAAS, and CMS. Cathet Cardiovasc Diagn 1996; 37: 14-22.
4. Reimers B, di Mario C, di Francesco L, et al. New approach to quantitative angiographic assessment after stent implantation. Cathet Cardiovasc Diagn 1997; 40: 343-347.
5. Van Weert AW, Lesperance J, Reiber JH. Standardization of central off-line quantitative image analysis: Implications from experiences with quantitative coronary angiography. Heart Drug 2001; 1: 44-51.
6. Tuinenburg JC, Koning G, Hekking E, et al. One core laboratory at two international sites, is that feasible? An inter-core laboratory and intra-observer variability study. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2002; 56: 333-340.
7. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986; 1: 307-310.
8. Reiber JHC, Serruys PW, Kooijman CJ, et al. Assessment of short-, medium-, and long term variations in arterial dimensions from computer-assisted quantitation of coronary cineangiograms. Circulation 1985; 71: 280-288.
9. Sirnes PA, Myreng Y, Molstad P, Golf S. Reproducibility of quantitative coronary analysis. Assessment of variability due to frame selection, different observers, and different cinefilmless laboratories. Int J Card Imaging 1996; 12: 197-203.
10. Beauman GJ, Reiber JH, Koning G, Van Houdt RCM, Vogel R. Angiographic core laboratories analyses of arterial phantom images: Comparative evaluations of accuracy and precision. In: Reiber JH, Serruys P, editors. Progress in Quantitative Coronary Angiography, 1994 ed. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1994; p. 87-104.