Comparative analysis of early and late angiographic outcomes using two quantitative algorithms in the Balloon versus Optimal Atherectomy Trial (BOAT)

Although substantial intersystem variability has been shown among several commercially available quantitative angiographic (QA) analysis algorithms, no previous study has compared the angiographic findings using 2 different QA systems performed at the same central angiographic laboratory. The purpos...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:The American journal of cardiology 1999-06, Vol.83 (12), p.1611-1616
Main Authors: Lansky, Alexandra J, Popma, Jeffrey J, Cutlip, Donald, Ho, Kalon K.L, Abizaid, Andrea S, Saucedo, Jorge, Zhang, Yan, Senerchia, Cynthia, Kuntz, Richard E, Leon, Martin B, Baim, Donald S
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Algorithms
Angioplasty
Angioplasty, Balloon, Coronary
Atherectomy, Coronary
Blood vessels
Cineangiography - methods
Comparative analysis
Coronary Angiography - methods
Coronary Angiography - statistics & numerical data
Humans
Medical imaging
Radiographic Image Enhancement
Time Factors
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Although substantial intersystem variability has been shown among several commercially available quantitative angiographic (QA) analysis algorithms, no previous study has compared the angiographic findings using 2 different QA systems performed at the same central angiographic laboratory. The purpose of this study was to compare the early and late QA results obtained with the CMS (MEDIS) and ARTREK (ImageComm) QA systems in the Balloon versus Optimal Atherectomy Trial. Directional atherectomy (n = 496) or balloon angioplasty (n = 490) was performed in 986 patients; late QA follow-up was available in 767 patients (77.7%). QA analysis was performed by 2 independent observers using the CMS and ARTREK systems. Correlation between the 2 QA systems for baseline measurements was good (Pearson’s R = 0.78), although the CMS system resulted in larger baseline reference diameter (RD) (3.22 ± 0.45 vs 3.07 ± 0.40 mm; p
ISSN:0002-9149
1879-1913
DOI:10.1016/S0002-9149(99)00166-6