ArticleBioMed research international2018
Reliability and Accuracy of Peri-Interventional Stenosis Grading in Peripheral Artery Disease Using Color-Coded Quantitative Fluoroscopy: A Phantom Study Comparing a Clinical and Scientific Postprocessing Software.
Article in BioMed research international, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Experimental Protocol and Phantom Design and Development for Performance Characterization of Conventional Devices for Peripheral Vascular Interventions.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2023Article
- Quantitative Evaluation of Peripheral Arterial Blood Flow Using Peri-Interventional Fluoroscopic Parameters: An In Vivo Study Evaluating Feasibility and Clinical Utility.BioMed research international · 2020Article
- Quantitative color-coded digital subtraction neuroangiography for pediatric arteriovenous shunting lesions.Child's nervous system : ChNS : official journal of the International Society for Pediatric Neurosurgery · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo assess quantitative stenosis grading by color-coded fluoroscopy using an in vitro pulsatile flow phantom.
methodsThree different stenotic tubes (80%, 60%, and 40% diameter restriction) and a nonstenotic reference tube were compared regarding their different flow behavior by using contrast-enhanced fluoroscopy with a flat-detector system for visualisation purposes. Time-density curves (TDC), area under the curve (AUC), time-to-peak (TTP), and different ROI sizes were analyzed in three independent measurements using two different postprocessing software solutions. In addition, exemplary TDCs of a patient with a high-grade stenosis before and after stent angioplasty were acquired.
resultsColor-coded fluoroscopy enabled depiction of differences in AUC and TDC between high-grade (80%), middle (60%), low-grade (40%), and nonstenotic tubes. The best correlation between high-, middle-, and low-grade stenosis was appreciated in ROIs behind the stenosis. This effect was enhanced by using longer integration times (5s, 7s) and a maximum frame rate of image acquisition for analysis (correlation coefficient rho=0.9284 at 5s). TTP showed no significant differences between high- and low-grade stenosis.
conclusionsVarious clinical studies in the literature already demonstrated reproducible and reliable stenosis grading by analyzing TDCs acquired with color-coded fluoroscopy. In contrast to TTP, AUC values derived in ROIs behind the stenosis proved to be reliable parameters for stenosis grading. However, our results also demonstrate that several factors are able to significantly impact the evaluation of AUC values. More precisely, accuracy of acquired AUC values can be improved by choosing longer integration times, a large ROI size adapted to the vessel diameter, and a higher frame rate of image acquisition.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.