ArticleInternational journal of cardiac imaging1996
Validation of coronary artery saphenous vein bypass graft diameter measurements using quantitative angiography.
Article in International journal of cardiac imaging, 1996. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The accepted value for reproducibility (true change) is two standard deviations (SD) of the differences between repeat measurements. It has been well established for coronary artery measurements using several different quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) systems, but it has not been well documented for saphenous vein grafts (SVG). The purpose of this study was to assess, using the Cardiovascular Measurement System (CMS), the measurement reproducibility of 24 vein grafts from 24 patients who had symptom-directed control angiography. Three equal graft segments were studied separately. Focal narrowings expressed in percent stenosis varied from 5 to 80% (mean 20.8 +/- 15.9%). The average minimum lumen diameter (MLD) was 3.07 +/- 0.81 mm and the average interpolated reference diameter (Ref. D) was 3.87 +/- 0.58 mm. We assessed the reproducibility of measurements obtained from two separate imagings of the graft in the same view but at least 20 minutes apart, near the beginning and at the end of the angiographic procedure (simulating baseline and end-trial examinations). The SD for differences in measurements (variability) was 0.183 mm for the MLD, 0.193 mm for the Ref.D, 0.184 mm for the mean diameter (Mean D) and 3.72% for the percent diameter stenosis (PDS). A reasonable true change cut-off for SVG measurements in our laboratory is > or = 0.4 mm for the minimum and mean lumen diameters, and > or = 10% for the PDS, when QCA is obtained with the QCA-CMS analytical software package.
Indexed as
Identifiers
8993992What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.