Vessel size measurements in angiograms: manual measurements.

Vessel size measurement is perhaps the most often performed quantitative analysis in diagnostic and interventional angiography. Although automated vessel sizing techniques are generally considered to have good accuracy and precision, we have observed that clinicians rarely use these techniques in standard clinical practice, choosing to indicate the edges of vessels and catheters to determine sizes and calibrate magnifications, i.e., manual measurements. Thus, we undertook an investigation of the accuracy and precision of vessel sizes calculated from manually indicated edges of vessels. Manual measurements were performed by three neuroradiologists and three physicists. Vessel sizes ranged from 0.1-3.0 mm in simulation studies and 0.3-6.4 mm in phantom studies. Simulation resolution functions had full-widths-at-half-maximum (FWHM) ranging from 0.0 to 0.5 mm. Phantom studies were performed with 4.5 in., 6 in., 9 in., and 12 in. image intensifier modes, magnification factor = 1, with and without zooming. The accuracy and reproducibility of the measurements ranged from 0.1 to 0.2 mm, depending on vessel size, resolution, and pixel size, and zoom. These results indicate that manual measurements may have accuracies comparable to automated techniques for vessels with sizes greater than 1 mm, but that automated techniques which take into account the resolution function should be used for vessels with sizes smaller than 1 mm.

[1]  R. Kruger,et al.  Cross-sectional area measurements by digital subtraction videodensitometry. , 1986, Investigative radiology.

[2]  Nabeel Hafeez Prevention of coronary restenosis with radiation therapy: A review , 2002, Clinical cardiology.

[3]  R. Dinsmore,et al.  Interobserver Variability in Coronary Angiography , 1976, Circulation.

[4]  B. Davis,et al.  Results of Prevention of REStenosis with Tranilast and its Outcomes (PRESTO) Trial , 2002, Circulation.

[5]  M. LeFree,et al.  Automated quantitative coronary arteriography: morphologic and physiologic validation in vivo of a rapid digital angiographic method. , 1987, Circulation.

[6]  J. Reiber,et al.  Issues in the performance of quantitative coronary angiography in clinical research trials , 1998 .

[7]  J. Reiber,et al.  A new approach for the quantification of complex lesion morphology: the gradient field transform; basic principles and validation results. , 1994, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[8]  T. Takaro,et al.  Observer Agreement in Evaluating Coronary Angiograms , 1975, Circulation.

[9]  S H Brooks,et al.  Reproducibility of a consensus panel in the interpretation of coronary angiograms. , 1978, American heart journal.

[10]  P D Verdouw,et al.  In-vivo validation of on-line and off-line geometric coronary measurements using insertion of stenosis phantoms in porcine coronary arteries. , 1992, Catheterization and cardiovascular diagnosis.

[11]  M. Eckstein,et al.  Simulating coronary arteries in x-ray angiograms. , 2000, Medical physics.

[12]  K Koi,et al.  Comparison of convolution and ray-tracing methods for computing small blood vessel images in angiography. , 1977, Medical physics.

[13]  D. Weber Absolute diameter measurements of coronary arteries based on the first zero crossing of the Fourier spectrum. , 1989, Medical physics.

[14]  K. Doi,et al.  Image feature analysis and computer-aided diagnosis in digital radiography. 2. Computerized determination of vessel sizes in digital subtraction angiography. , 1987, Medical physics.

[15]  Milan Sonka,et al.  Adaptive approach to accurate analysis of small-diameter vessels in cineangiograms , 1997, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[16]  K. Gould,et al.  AUTOMATED EVALUATION OF VESSEL DIAMETER FROM ARTERIOGRAMS. , 1983 .

[17]  E. Gronenschild,et al.  CAAS. II: A second generation system for off-line and on-line quantitative coronary angiography. , 1994, Catheterization and cardiovascular diagnosis.

[18]  J E Edwards,et al.  Correlation of the Antemortem Coronary Arteriogram and the Postmortem Specimen , 1973, Circulation.

[19]  C. Tracy,et al.  American College of Cardiology Clinical Expert Consensus Document on Standards for Acquisition, Measurement and Reporting of Intravascular Ultrasound Studies (IVUS). A report of the American College of Cardiology Task Force on Clinical Expert Consensus Documents. , 2001, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[20]  C J Slager,et al.  Experimental validation of geometric and densitometric coronary measurements on the new generation Cardiovascular Angiography Analysis System (CAAS II). , 1993, Catheterization and cardiovascular diagnosis.

[21]  Michael H. Kutner Applied Linear Statistical Models , 1974 .

[22]  R. Kruger Estimation of the diameter of and iodine concentration within blood vessels using digital radiography devices. , 1981, Medical physics.

[23]  L. N. Loo,et al.  Validity of computer simulation of blood vessel imaging in angiography. , 1977, Medical physics.

[24]  K. Hoffmann,et al.  Vessel size measurements in angiograms: a comparison of techniques. , 2002, Medical physics.

[25]  W. Clem Karl,et al.  A new model-based technique for enhanced small-vessel measurements in X-ray cine-angiograms , 2000, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[26]  C M Grondin,et al.  Discrepancies Between Cineangiographic and Postmortem Findings in Patients with Coronary Artery Disease and Recent Myocardial Revascularization , 1974, Circulation.

[27]  J. Murray,et al.  Variability in the Analysis of Coronary Arteriograms , 1977, Circulation.

[28]  Daniel R. Bednarek,et al.  Region of interest (ROI) microangiography: imager development , 2000, Medical Imaging.

[29]  Michael T. LeFree,et al.  Digital Radiographic Assessment Of Coronary Arterial Geometric Diameter And Videodensitometric Cross-Sectional Area , 1986, Other Conferences.

[30]  C. J. Kooijman,et al.  How critical is frame selection in quantitative coronary angiographic studies? , 1989, European heart journal.

[31]  C J Slager,et al.  Comparative validation of quantitative coronary angiography systems. Results and implications from a multicenter study using a standardized approach. , 1995, Circulation.