Key result
Radiology technicians using quantitative coronary angiography software assessed target vessel size and lesion length with significant correlation to senior interventional cardiologists (r=0.46 and r=0.64).
Why the study?
Does quantitative coronary stenosis assessment performed by a radiology technician correlate reliably with assessment by a senior interventional cardiologist in patients undergoing PCI?
Observational (n=44)
Blinded
No
Does quantitative coronary stenosis assessment performed by a radiology technician correlate reliably with assessment by a senior interventional cardiologist in patients undergoing PCI?
Radiology technicians using QCA software can reliably assess target lesion size and length during PCI, with performance comparable to senior interventional cardiologists.
May support technician QCA use in PCI workflows; hypothesis-generating and requires prospective validation before practice change.
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.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Brunetti et al. (2014) conducted an observational in Acute coronary syndrome (n=44). Quantitative coronary stenosis assessment by radiology technician vs. Assessment by senior interventional cardiologist was evaluated on Correlation of target vessel size assessment between radiology technician and senior interventional cardiologist (r = 0.46, p=<0.01). Radiology technicians using quantitative coronary angiography software assessed target vessel size and lesion length with significant correlation to senior interventional cardiologists (r=0.46 and r=0.64).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: