BACKGROUND: Exact quantification of plaque extension during coronary angioplasty (PCI) usually falls on interventional cardiologist (IC). Quantitative coronary stenosis assessment (QCA) may be possibly committed to the radiology technician (RT), who usually supports cath-lab nurse and IC during PCI. We therefore sought to investigate the reliability of QCA performed by RT in comparison with IC. METHODS: Forty-four consecutive patients with acute coronary syndrome underwent PCI; target coronary vessel size beneath target coronary lesion (S) and target coronary lesion length (L) were assessed by the RT, junior IC (JIC), and senior IC (SIC) and then compared. SIC evaluation, which determined the final stent selection for coronary stenting, was considered as a reference benchmark. RESULTS: RT performance with QCA support in assessing target vessel size and target lesion length was not significantly different from SIC (r = 0.46, p < 0.01; r = 0.64, p < 0.001, respectively) as well as JIC (r = 0.79, r = 0.75, p < 0.001, respectively). JIC performance was significantly better than RT in assessing target vessel size (p < 0.05), while not significant when assessing target lesion length. CONCLUSIONS: RT may reliably assess target lesion by using adequate QCA software in the cath-lab in case of PCI; RT performance does not differ from SIC.
BACKGROUND: Exact quantification of plaque extension during coronary angioplasty (PCI) usually falls on interventional cardiologist (IC). Quantitative coronary stenosis assessment (QCA) may be possibly committed to the radiology technician (RT), who usually supports cath-lab nurse and IC during PCI. We therefore sought to investigate the reliability of QCA performed by RT in comparison with IC. METHODS: Forty-four consecutive patients with acute coronary syndrome underwent PCI; target coronary vessel size beneath target coronary lesion (S) and target coronary lesion length (L) were assessed by the RT, junior IC (JIC), and senior IC (SIC) and then compared. SIC evaluation, which determined the final stent selection for coronary stenting, was considered as a reference benchmark. RESULTS: RT performance with QCA support in assessing target vessel size and target lesion length was not significantly different from SIC (r = 0.46, p < 0.01; r = 0.64, p < 0.001, respectively) as well as JIC (r = 0.79, r = 0.75, p < 0.001, respectively). JIC performance was significantly better than RT in assessing target vessel size (p < 0.05), while not significant when assessing target lesion length. CONCLUSIONS: RT may reliably assess target lesion by using adequate QCA software in the cath-lab in case of PCI; RT performance does not differ from SIC.
Authors: Paul L Van Herck; Laurence Gavit; Peter Gorissen; Floris L Wuyts; Marc J Claeys; Johan M Bosmans; Karim Benali; Christiaan J Vrints Journal: Catheter Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2004-10 Impact factor: 2.692