BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Although flow diversion devices are popular in treatment of aneurysms, angiographic assessment with these devices has rarely been verified by interobserver variability study. The purpose of this study was to determine the interobserver agreement of a 3-point grading system for assessing the angiographic outcome after flow diversion therapy of intracranial, saccular aneurysms and to determine factors affecting such agreement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: After approval by the institutional review board, 5 independent readers assessed pretreatment and follow-up digital subtraction angiograms from 96 patients treated with the Pipeline embolization device by using a 3-point grading system (complete, near-complete, and incomplete occlusion). "Minor discrepancy" was defined as a difference between any 2 readers of 1 grade, that is, complete vs near-complete or near-complete vs incomplete. "Major discrepancy" was defined as a difference between any 2 readers in which 1 reader noted complete occlusion and the other reader noted incomplete occlusion. We performed statistical analysis for the interobserver agreement by using the intraclass correlation coefficient. Subgroup analyses for discrepancy rate and ICC were performed for previously coiled aneurysms. RESULTS: The interobserver agreement was excellent (ICC, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.69-0.92). Among 96 cases, there was absolute agreement in 74 (77%), of which 67 had unanimous consensus of "complete" occlusion, 2 "near-complete" occlusion, and 5 "incomplete" occlusion. Discordance between any 2 readers was noted in 22 cases (23%), of which 7 (7.3%) revealed a major discrepancy. Subgroup analysis showed that minor discrepancies were more common among patients previously treated with coils vs those not previously treated with coils (37.5% vs 11.2%; P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: The observer agreement regarding occlusion after PED therapy is excellent. Only a minority of cases demonstrated discrepancy considered as major in this study.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Although flow diversion devices are popular in treatment of aneurysms, angiographic assessment with these devices has rarely been verified by interobserver variability study. The purpose of this study was to determine the interobserver agreement of a 3-point grading system for assessing the angiographic outcome after flow diversion therapy of intracranial, saccular aneurysms and to determine factors affecting such agreement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: After approval by the institutional review board, 5 independent readers assessed pretreatment and follow-up digital subtraction angiograms from 96 patients treated with the Pipeline embolization device by using a 3-point grading system (complete, near-complete, and incomplete occlusion). "Minor discrepancy" was defined as a difference between any 2 readers of 1 grade, that is, complete vs near-complete or near-complete vs incomplete. "Major discrepancy" was defined as a difference between any 2 readers in which 1 reader noted complete occlusion and the other reader noted incomplete occlusion. We performed statistical analysis for the interobserver agreement by using the intraclass correlation coefficient. Subgroup analyses for discrepancy rate and ICC were performed for previously coiled aneurysms. RESULTS: The interobserver agreement was excellent (ICC, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.69-0.92). Among 96 cases, there was absolute agreement in 74 (77%), of which 67 had unanimous consensus of "complete" occlusion, 2 "near-complete" occlusion, and 5 "incomplete" occlusion. Discordance between any 2 readers was noted in 22 cases (23%), of which 7 (7.3%) revealed a major discrepancy. Subgroup analysis showed that minor discrepancies were more common among patients previously treated with coils vs those not previously treated with coils (37.5% vs 11.2%; P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: The observer agreement regarding occlusion after PED therapy is excellent. Only a minority of cases demonstrated discrepancy considered as major in this study.
Authors: Waleed Brinjikji; Harry J Cloft; David Fiorella; Giuseppe Lanzino; David F Kallmes Journal: J Neurointerv Surg Date: 2011-12-02 Impact factor: 5.836
Authors: J Berge; A Biondi; P Machi; H Brunel; L Pierot; J Gabrillargues; K Kadziolka; X Barreau; V Dousset; A Bonafé Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2012-02-02 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: M P Sampat; G J Whitman; T W Stephens; L D Broemeling; N A Heger; A C Bovik; M K Markey Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2006-12 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Philip M Meyers; H Christian Schumacher; Randall T Higashida; Colin P Derdeyn; Gary M Nesbit; David Sacks; Lawrence R Wechsler; Joshua B Bederson; Sean D Lavine; Peter Rasmussen Journal: J Vasc Interv Radiol Date: 2009-07 Impact factor: 3.464
Authors: John Thornton; Gerard M Debrun; Victor A Aletich; Qasim Bashir; Fady T Charbel; James Ausman Journal: Neurosurgery Date: 2002-02 Impact factor: 4.654
Authors: W P Daugherty; A Ehteshami Rad; J B White; P M Meyers; G L Lanzino; H J Cloft; J Gordon; D F Kallmes Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2011-01-20 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: A Rouchaud; W Brinjikji; Y-H Ding; D Dai; Y Q Zhu; H J Cloft; D F Kallmes; R Kadirvel Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2015-09-24 Impact factor: 3.825