BACKGROUND: Our aim was to evaluate the accuracy of quantitative vessel analysis (QVA) in measuring the reference vessel diameter (RVD) of femoropopliteal lesions. METHODS: Between October 2014 and September 2015, 30 consecutive femoropopliteal lesions in 25 patients who underwent endovascular therapy (EVT) under intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) guidance were analyzed. RVDs measured using QVAsheath (calibrated using a 6-Fr sheath in the common femoral artery) and QVAruler (calibrated using a ruler on the angiography table) were compared to those obtained using IVUS as the reference values. RESULTS: The mean QVAsheath-measured RVD was significantly larger than the mean IVUS-measured RVD (5.34±1.29 vs. 5.07±1.20 mm, P=0.001). In contrast, mean QVAruler-measured RVD was 4.60±1.04 mm, which was significantly smaller than both the mean IVUS- and mean QVAsheath-measured RVD (both P<0.001). Bland-Altman analysis revealed that the 95% limits of agreement versus IVUS ranged from -0.94 to 1.49 mm for QVAsheath and -1.69 to 0.76 mm for QVAruler, respectively. Agreement with tolerance of ±1.00 mm accounted for 88% of QVAsheath and 83% of QVAruler (P=0.60). The difference between QVA- and IVUS-measured RVDs was inversely correlated with the distance from the table (P=0.029 for QVAsheath and P=0.003 for QVAruler). CONCLUSIONS: The accuracy of both QVAsheath and QVAruler in measuring RVD were similarly suboptimal. Over- and under-estimation of RVD is not rare in QVA. 2022 Quantitative Imaging in Medicine and Surgery. All rights reserved.
BACKGROUND: Our aim was to evaluate the accuracy of quantitative vessel analysis (QVA) in measuring the reference vessel diameter (RVD) of femoropopliteal lesions. METHODS: Between October 2014 and September 2015, 30 consecutive femoropopliteal lesions in 25 patients who underwent endovascular therapy (EVT) under intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) guidance were analyzed. RVDs measured using QVAsheath (calibrated using a 6-Fr sheath in the common femoral artery) and QVAruler (calibrated using a ruler on the angiography table) were compared to those obtained using IVUS as the reference values. RESULTS: The mean QVAsheath-measured RVD was significantly larger than the mean IVUS-measured RVD (5.34±1.29 vs. 5.07±1.20 mm, P=0.001). In contrast, mean QVAruler-measured RVD was 4.60±1.04 mm, which was significantly smaller than both the mean IVUS- and mean QVAsheath-measured RVD (both P<0.001). Bland-Altman analysis revealed that the 95% limits of agreement versus IVUS ranged from -0.94 to 1.49 mm for QVAsheath and -1.69 to 0.76 mm for QVAruler, respectively. Agreement with tolerance of ±1.00 mm accounted for 88% of QVAsheath and 83% of QVAruler (P=0.60). The difference between QVA- and IVUS-measured RVDs was inversely correlated with the distance from the table (P=0.029 for QVAsheath and P=0.003 for QVAruler). CONCLUSIONS: The accuracy of both QVAsheath and QVAruler in measuring RVD were similarly suboptimal. Over- and under-estimation of RVD is not rare in QVA. 2022 Quantitative Imaging in Medicine and Surgery. All rights reserved.
Authors: Chris Pavlovic; Hideki Futamatsu; Dominick J Angiolillo; Luis A Guzman; Norbert Wilke; Daniel Siragusa; Peter Wludyka; Robert Percy; Martin Northrup; Theodore A Bass; Marco A Costa Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2006-07-27 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Lawrence A Garcia; Kenneth R Rosenfield; Christopher D Metzger; Frank Zidar; Ashish Pershad; Jeffrey J Popma; Margo Zaugg; Michael R Jaff Journal: Catheter Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2017-05-04 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: E Regar; P W Serruys; C Bode; C Holubarsch; J L Guermonprez; W Wijns; A Bartorelli; C Constantini; M Degertekin; K Tanabe; C Disco; E Wuelfert; M C Morice Journal: Circulation Date: 2002-10-08 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Stephan H Duda; Benjamin Pusich; Goetz Richter; Peter Landwehr; Vincent L Oliva; Alexander Tielbeek; Benjamin Wiesinger; Jan Bart Hak; Hans Tielemans; Gerhard Ziemer; Ecatarina Cristea; Alexandra Lansky; Jean P Bérégi Journal: Circulation Date: 2002-09-17 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Zachary M Arthurs; Paul D Bishop; Lindsay E Feiten; Matthew J Eagleton; Daniel G Clair; Vikram S Kashyap Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2010-01-15 Impact factor: 4.268
Authors: Jasmin Amighi; Martin Schillinger; Petra Dick; Oliver Schlager; Schila Sabeti; Wolfgang Mlekusch; Markus Haumer; Rainer Mathies; Gerald Heinzle; Antonius Schuster; Christian Loewe; Renate Koppensteiner; Johannes Lammer; Erich Minar; Manfred Cejna Journal: Radiology Date: 2008-02-12 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Hans Krankenberg; Michael Schlüter; Hermann J Steinkamp; Karlheinz Bürgelin; Dierk Scheinert; Karl-Ludwig Schulte; Erich Minar; Patrick Peeters; Marc Bosiers; Gunnar Tepe; Bernhard Reimers; Felix Mahler; Thilo Tübler; Thomas Zeller Journal: Circulation Date: 2007-06-25 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Jeffrey W Moses; Martin B Leon; Jeffrey J Popma; Peter J Fitzgerald; David R Holmes; Charles O'Shaughnessy; Ronald P Caputo; Dean J Kereiakes; David O Williams; Paul S Teirstein; Judith L Jaeger; Richard E Kuntz Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2003-10-02 Impact factor: 91.245