Cargando…

CT Angiography Manual Multiplanar Vessel Diameter Measurement vs. Semiautomated Perpendicular Area Minimal Caliber Computation of Internal Carotid Artery Stenosis

Objective: To determine the diagnostic agreement of CT angiography (CTA) manual multiplanar reformatting (MPR) stenosis diameter measurement and semiautomated perpendicular stenosis area minimal caliber computation of extracranial internal carotid artery (ICA) stenosis. Methods: We analyzed acute ce...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Siepmann, Timo, Barlinn, Kristian, Floegel, Thomas, Barlinn, Jessica, Pallesen, Lars-Peder, Puetz, Volker, Kitzler, Hagen H.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8695607/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34957236
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fcvm.2021.740237
_version_ 1784619618052079616
author Siepmann, Timo
Barlinn, Kristian
Floegel, Thomas
Barlinn, Jessica
Pallesen, Lars-Peder
Puetz, Volker
Kitzler, Hagen H.
author_facet Siepmann, Timo
Barlinn, Kristian
Floegel, Thomas
Barlinn, Jessica
Pallesen, Lars-Peder
Puetz, Volker
Kitzler, Hagen H.
author_sort Siepmann, Timo
collection PubMed
description Objective: To determine the diagnostic agreement of CT angiography (CTA) manual multiplanar reformatting (MPR) stenosis diameter measurement and semiautomated perpendicular stenosis area minimal caliber computation of extracranial internal carotid artery (ICA) stenosis. Methods: We analyzed acute cerebral ischemia CTA at our tertiary stroke center in a 12-month period. Prospective NASCET-type stenosis grading for each ICA was independently performed using (1) MPR to manually determine diameters and (2) perpendicular stenosis area with minimal caliber semiautomated computation to grade luminal constriction. Corresponding to clinically relevant NASCET strata, results were grouped into severity ranges: normal, 1–49%, 50–69%, and 70–99%, and occlusion. Results: We included 647 ICA pairs from 330 patients (median age of 74 [66–80, IQR]; 38–92 years; 58% men; median NIHSS 4 [1–9, IQR]). MPR diameter and semiautomated caliber measurements resulted in stenosis grades of 0–49% in 143 vs. 93, 50–69% in 29 vs. 27, 70–99% in 6 vs. 14, and occlusion in 34 vs. 34 ICAs (p = 0.003), respectively. We found excellent reliability between repeated manual CTA assessments of one expert reader (ICC = 0.997; 95% CI, 0.993–0.999) and assessments of two expert readers (ICC = 0.972; 95% CI, 0.936–0.988). For the semiautomated vessel analysis software, both intrarater reliability and interrater reliability were similarly strong (ICC = 0.981; 95% CI, 0.952–0.992 and ICC = 0.745; 95% CI, 0.486–0.883, respectively). However, Bland–Altman analysis revealed a mean difference of 1.6% between the methods within disease range with wide 95% limits of agreement (−16.7–19.8%). This interval even increased with exclusively considered vessel pairs of stenosis ≥1% (mean 5.3%; −24.1–34.7%) or symptomatic stenosis ≥50% (mean 0.1%; −25.7–26.0%). Conclusion: Our findings suggest that MPR-based diameter measurement and the semiautomated perpendicular area minimal caliber computation methods cannot be used interchangeably for the quantification of ICA steno-occlusive disease.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8695607
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-86956072021-12-24 CT Angiography Manual Multiplanar Vessel Diameter Measurement vs. Semiautomated Perpendicular Area Minimal Caliber Computation of Internal Carotid Artery Stenosis Siepmann, Timo Barlinn, Kristian Floegel, Thomas Barlinn, Jessica Pallesen, Lars-Peder Puetz, Volker Kitzler, Hagen H. Front Cardiovasc Med Cardiovascular Medicine Objective: To determine the diagnostic agreement of CT angiography (CTA) manual multiplanar reformatting (MPR) stenosis diameter measurement and semiautomated perpendicular stenosis area minimal caliber computation of extracranial internal carotid artery (ICA) stenosis. Methods: We analyzed acute cerebral ischemia CTA at our tertiary stroke center in a 12-month period. Prospective NASCET-type stenosis grading for each ICA was independently performed using (1) MPR to manually determine diameters and (2) perpendicular stenosis area with minimal caliber semiautomated computation to grade luminal constriction. Corresponding to clinically relevant NASCET strata, results were grouped into severity ranges: normal, 1–49%, 50–69%, and 70–99%, and occlusion. Results: We included 647 ICA pairs from 330 patients (median age of 74 [66–80, IQR]; 38–92 years; 58% men; median NIHSS 4 [1–9, IQR]). MPR diameter and semiautomated caliber measurements resulted in stenosis grades of 0–49% in 143 vs. 93, 50–69% in 29 vs. 27, 70–99% in 6 vs. 14, and occlusion in 34 vs. 34 ICAs (p = 0.003), respectively. We found excellent reliability between repeated manual CTA assessments of one expert reader (ICC = 0.997; 95% CI, 0.993–0.999) and assessments of two expert readers (ICC = 0.972; 95% CI, 0.936–0.988). For the semiautomated vessel analysis software, both intrarater reliability and interrater reliability were similarly strong (ICC = 0.981; 95% CI, 0.952–0.992 and ICC = 0.745; 95% CI, 0.486–0.883, respectively). However, Bland–Altman analysis revealed a mean difference of 1.6% between the methods within disease range with wide 95% limits of agreement (−16.7–19.8%). This interval even increased with exclusively considered vessel pairs of stenosis ≥1% (mean 5.3%; −24.1–34.7%) or symptomatic stenosis ≥50% (mean 0.1%; −25.7–26.0%). Conclusion: Our findings suggest that MPR-based diameter measurement and the semiautomated perpendicular area minimal caliber computation methods cannot be used interchangeably for the quantification of ICA steno-occlusive disease. Frontiers Media S.A. 2021-12-09 /pmc/articles/PMC8695607/ /pubmed/34957236 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fcvm.2021.740237 Text en Copyright © 2021 Siepmann, Barlinn, Floegel, Barlinn, Pallesen, Puetz and Kitzler. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Cardiovascular Medicine
Siepmann, Timo
Barlinn, Kristian
Floegel, Thomas
Barlinn, Jessica
Pallesen, Lars-Peder
Puetz, Volker
Kitzler, Hagen H.
CT Angiography Manual Multiplanar Vessel Diameter Measurement vs. Semiautomated Perpendicular Area Minimal Caliber Computation of Internal Carotid Artery Stenosis
title CT Angiography Manual Multiplanar Vessel Diameter Measurement vs. Semiautomated Perpendicular Area Minimal Caliber Computation of Internal Carotid Artery Stenosis
title_full CT Angiography Manual Multiplanar Vessel Diameter Measurement vs. Semiautomated Perpendicular Area Minimal Caliber Computation of Internal Carotid Artery Stenosis
title_fullStr CT Angiography Manual Multiplanar Vessel Diameter Measurement vs. Semiautomated Perpendicular Area Minimal Caliber Computation of Internal Carotid Artery Stenosis
title_full_unstemmed CT Angiography Manual Multiplanar Vessel Diameter Measurement vs. Semiautomated Perpendicular Area Minimal Caliber Computation of Internal Carotid Artery Stenosis
title_short CT Angiography Manual Multiplanar Vessel Diameter Measurement vs. Semiautomated Perpendicular Area Minimal Caliber Computation of Internal Carotid Artery Stenosis
title_sort ct angiography manual multiplanar vessel diameter measurement vs. semiautomated perpendicular area minimal caliber computation of internal carotid artery stenosis
topic Cardiovascular Medicine
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8695607/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34957236
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fcvm.2021.740237
work_keys_str_mv AT siepmanntimo ctangiographymanualmultiplanarvesseldiametermeasurementvssemiautomatedperpendicularareaminimalcalibercomputationofinternalcarotidarterystenosis
AT barlinnkristian ctangiographymanualmultiplanarvesseldiametermeasurementvssemiautomatedperpendicularareaminimalcalibercomputationofinternalcarotidarterystenosis
AT floegelthomas ctangiographymanualmultiplanarvesseldiametermeasurementvssemiautomatedperpendicularareaminimalcalibercomputationofinternalcarotidarterystenosis
AT barlinnjessica ctangiographymanualmultiplanarvesseldiametermeasurementvssemiautomatedperpendicularareaminimalcalibercomputationofinternalcarotidarterystenosis
AT pallesenlarspeder ctangiographymanualmultiplanarvesseldiametermeasurementvssemiautomatedperpendicularareaminimalcalibercomputationofinternalcarotidarterystenosis
AT puetzvolker ctangiographymanualmultiplanarvesseldiametermeasurementvssemiautomatedperpendicularareaminimalcalibercomputationofinternalcarotidarterystenosis
AT kitzlerhagenh ctangiographymanualmultiplanarvesseldiametermeasurementvssemiautomatedperpendicularareaminimalcalibercomputationofinternalcarotidarterystenosis