Caroline E Mora1, Claude D Marcus1, Coralie M Barbe2, Fiona B Ecarnot3, Anne L Long4. 1. Department of Radiology, University Hospital Reims, Hôpital Robert Debré, Reims, France. 2. Clinical Research Unit, University Hospital Reims, Hôpital Robert Debré, Reims, France. 3. EA3920, Department of Cardiology, University Hospital Besancon, Besançon, France. 4. Department of Internal Medicine and Vascular Medicine, Pavillon M, Hospices Civils de Lyon, University Hospital Edouard Herriot, Lyon, France; Faculty of Medicine and Maieutic Charles Merieux, Claude Bernard Lyon 1 University, Oullins, France.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Computed tomography angiography (CTA) is the reference technique for the measurement of native maximum abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) diameter when surgery is being considered. However, there is a wide choice available for the methodology of maximum AAA diameter measurement on CTA, and to date, no consensus has been reached on which method is best. We analyzed clinical decisions based on these various measures of native maximum AAA diameter with CTA, then analyzed their reproducibility and identified the method of measurement yielding the highest agreement in terms of patient management. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three sets of measures in 46 native AAA were obtained, double-blind by three radiologists (J, S, V) on orthogonal planes, curved multiplanar reconstructions, and semi-automated-software, based on the AAA-lumen centerline. From each set, the clinical decision was recorded as follows: "Follow-up" (if all diameters <50 mm), "ambiguous" (if at least one diameter <50 mm AND at least one ≥50 mm) or "Surgery " (if all diameters ≥50 mm). Intra- and interobserver agreements in clinical decisions were compared using the weighted Kappa coefficient. RESULTS: Clinical decisions varied according to the measurement sets used by each observer, and according to intra and interobserver (lecture#1) reproducibility. Based on the first reading of each observer, the number of AAA proposed for surgery ranged from 11 to 24 for J, 5 to 20 for S, and 15 to 23 for V. The rate of AAAs classified as "ambiguous" varied from 11% (5/46) to 37% (17/46). The semi-automated method yielded very good intraand interobserver agreements in clinical decisions in all comparisons (Kappa range 0.83-1.00). CONCLUSION: The semi-automated method seems to be appropriate for native AAA maximum diameter measurement on CTA. In the absence of AAA outer-wallbased software more robust for complex AAA, clinical decisions might best be made with diameter values obtained using this technique.
BACKGROUND: Computed tomography angiography (CTA) is the reference technique for the measurement of native maximum abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) diameter when surgery is being considered. However, there is a wide choice available for the methodology of maximum AAA diameter measurement on CTA, and to date, no consensus has been reached on which method is best. We analyzed clinical decisions based on these various measures of native maximum AAA diameter with CTA, then analyzed their reproducibility and identified the method of measurement yielding the highest agreement in terms of patient management. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three sets of measures in 46 native AAA were obtained, double-blind by three radiologists (J, S, V) on orthogonal planes, curved multiplanar reconstructions, and semi-automated-software, based on the AAA-lumen centerline. From each set, the clinical decision was recorded as follows: "Follow-up" (if all diameters <50 mm), "ambiguous" (if at least one diameter <50 mm AND at least one ≥50 mm) or "Surgery " (if all diameters ≥50 mm). Intra- and interobserver agreements in clinical decisions were compared using the weighted Kappa coefficient. RESULTS: Clinical decisions varied according to the measurement sets used by each observer, and according to intra and interobserver (lecture#1) reproducibility. Based on the first reading of each observer, the number of AAA proposed for surgery ranged from 11 to 24 for J, 5 to 20 for S, and 15 to 23 for V. The rate of AAAs classified as "ambiguous" varied from 11% (5/46) to 37% (17/46). The semi-automated method yielded very good intraand interobserver agreements in clinical decisions in all comparisons (Kappa range 0.83-1.00). CONCLUSION: The semi-automated method seems to be appropriate for native AAA maximum diameter measurement on CTA. In the absence of AAA outer-wallbased software more robust for complex AAA, clinical decisions might best be made with diameter values obtained using this technique.
Authors: F L Moll; J T Powell; G Fraedrich; F Verzini; S Haulon; M Waltham; J A van Herwaarden; P J E Holt; J W van Keulen; B Rantner; F J V Schlösser; F Setacci; J-B Ricco Journal: Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg Date: 2011-01 Impact factor: 7.069
Authors: Alexandre Dugas; Eric Therasse; Claude Kauffmann; An Tang; Stephane Elkouri; Anna Nozza; Marie-France Giroux; Vincent L Oliva; Gilles Soulez Journal: Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol Date: 2011-08-24 Impact factor: 2.740
Authors: Claude Kauffmann; An Tang; Eric Therasse; Marie-France Giroux; Stephane Elkouri; Philippe Melanson; Bertrand Melanson; Vincent L Oliva; Gilles Soulez Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2011-05-20 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: David C Brewster; Jack L Cronenwett; John W Hallett; K Wayne Johnston; William C Krupski; Jon S Matsumura Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2003-05 Impact factor: 4.268
Authors: Janet T Powell; Michael J Sweeting; Matthew M Thompson; Ray Ashleigh; Rachel Bell; Manuel Gomes; Roger M Greenhalgh; Richard Grieve; Francine Heatley; Robert J Hinchliffe; Simon G Thompson; Pinar Ulug Journal: BMJ Date: 2014-01-13
Authors: Sharath Chandra Vikram Paravastu; Rubaraj Jayarajasingam; Rachel Cottam; Simon J Palfreyman; Jonathan A Michaels; Steven M Thomas Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2014-01-23