Literature DB >> 28110432

Two-by-two cross-over study to evaluate agreement between versions of a quantitative coronary analysis system (QAngio XA).

Kayoko Kozuma1, Kosuke Kashiwabara2, Tomohiro Shinozaki2, Ken Kozuma3, Koji Oba2, Yutaka Matsuyama2.   

Abstract

The current version (ver. 7.3) of the popular quantitative coronary analysis system QAngio XA (Medis Medical Imaging System BV, Leiden, the Netherlands) is widely used without evaluating the agreement between the current and older versions in relation to a change of algorithms. The purpose of this study was to assess the equivalence of averages between QAngio XA versions 7.3 and 6.0. Based on the calculated sample size, angiographic images of 100 patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention of a single target lesion were randomly selected from two published studies (OUCH-TL: 154 lesions; OUCH-PRO: 160 lesions). The primary endpoint was the minimum lumen diameter (MLD), and the secondary endpoints were the reference diameter (RefD) and length of the stenotic lesion (LL). Two independent analysts measured the same frame using both previous and current versions of QAngio XA. Version-order for each lesion was randomly determined per coronary locations targeted. Data were analysed by using a mixed model that includes random lesion effects and fixed rater effects and reading-order effects. A Bland-Altman plot of parameters showed no large differences between the versions. Differences in parameters were estimated by the mixed model, and the 95% confidence interval of the MLD, RefD, and LL estimates was from -0.045 to -0.0001 mm, from -0.040 to 0.006 mm, and from -1.08 to 0.46 mm, respectively, compared with the predefined non-inferiority margin of ±0.2 mm. Measurements of MLD and RefD using QAngio XA showed no major systematic differences between versions.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Coronary artery disease; Imaging modalities; Minimum lumen diameter; Mixed model; QCA

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28110432     DOI: 10.1007/s10554-017-1068-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Cardiovasc Imaging        ISSN: 1569-5794            Impact factor:   2.357


  25 in total

1.  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.

Authors:  P J Scanlon; D P Faxon; A M Audet; B Carabello; G J Dehmer; K A Eagle; R D Legako; D F Leon; J A Murray; S E Nissen; C J Pepine; R M Watson; J L Ritchie; R J Gibbons; M D Cheitlin; T J Gardner; A Garson; R O Russell; T J Ryan; S C Smith
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  1999-05       Impact factor: 24.094

2.  Comparison of everolimus- and biolimus-eluting coronary stents with everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffolds.

Authors:  Serban Puricel; Diego Arroyo; Noé Corpataux; Gérard Baeriswyl; Sonja Lehmann; Zacharenia Kallinikou; Olivier Muller; Ludovic Allard; Jean-Christophe Stauffer; Mario Togni; Jean-Jacques Goy; Stéphane Cook
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  2015-03-03       Impact factor: 24.094

3.  Everolimus-eluting versus sirolimus-eluting stents in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: the EXCELLENT (Efficacy of Xience/Promus Versus Cypher to Reduce Late Loss After Stenting) randomized trial.

Authors:  Kyung Woo Park; In-Ho Chae; Do-Sun Lim; Kyoo-Rok Han; Han-Mo Yang; Hae-Young Lee; Hyun-Jae Kang; Bon-Kwon Koo; Taehoon Ahn; Jung-Han Yoon; Myung-Ho Jeong; Taek-Jong Hong; Woo-Young Chung; Sang-Ho Jo; Young-Jin Choi; Seung-Ho Hur; Hyuck-Moon Kwon; Dong-Woon Jeon; Byung-Ok Kim; Si-Hoon Park; Nam-Ho Lee; Hui-Kyung Jeon; Hyeon-Cheol Gwon; Yang-Soo Jang; Hyo-Soo Kim
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  2011-10-25       Impact factor: 24.094

4.  Comparison of QCA systems.

Authors:  U Dietz; H J Rupprecht; R Brennecke; H P Fritsch; J Woltmann; S Blankenberg; J Meyer
Journal:  Int J Card Imaging       Date:  1997-08

5.  Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement.

Authors:  J M Bland; D G Altman
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1986-02-08       Impact factor: 79.321

6.  Effectiveness of paclitaxel-eluting stents in complex clinical patients. -Insights from the TAXUS Japan Postmarket surveillance study.-.

Authors:  Masato Nakamura; Jun-Ichi Kotani; Ken Kozuma; Takahiro Uchida; Masashi Iwabuchi; Toshiya Muramatsu; Haruo Hirayama; Kenshi Fujii; Shigeru Saito
Journal:  Circ J       Date:  2011-08-06       Impact factor: 2.993

7.  In vivo comparison of different quantitative edge detection systems used for measuring coronary arterial diameters.

Authors:  W Desmet; I De Scheerder; K Beatt; T Huehns; J Piessens
Journal:  Cathet Cardiovasc Diagn       Date:  1995-01

8.  Usefulness of Everolimus-Eluting Coronary Stent Implantation in Patients on Maintenance Hemodialysis.

Authors:  Yuji Ikari; Hiroyuki Kyono; Takaaki Isshiki; Shuichi Ishizuka; Kenya Nasu; Koichi Sano; Hisayuki Okada; Teruyasu Sugano; Yoshiki Uehara
Journal:  Am J Cardiol       Date:  2015-06-24       Impact factor: 2.778

9.  Comparison of assessment of native coronary arteries by standard versus three-dimensional coronary angiography.

Authors:  Pierfrancesco Agostoni; Giuseppe Biondi-Zoccai; Glenn Van Langenhove; Kristoff Cornelis; Paul Vermeersch; Carl Convens; Corrado Vassanelli; Paul Van Den Heuvel; Frank Van Den Branden; Stefan Verheye
Journal:  Am J Cardiol       Date:  2008-05-22       Impact factor: 2.778

Review 10.  Dedicated bifurcation analysis: basic principles.

Authors:  Joan C Tuinenburg; Gerhard Koning; Andrei Rareş; Johannes P Janssen; Alexandra J Lansky; Johan H C Reiber
Journal:  Int J Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2011-02-17       Impact factor: 2.357

View more
  1 in total

1.  Cardiovascular imaging 2017 in the International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging.

Authors:  Johan H C Reiber; Amer Alaiti; Hiram G Bezerra; Johan De Sutter; Paul Schoenhagen; Arthur E Stillman; Nico R L Van de Veire
Journal:  Int J Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2018-06       Impact factor: 2.357

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.