ArticleJournal of cardiovascular development and disease2025
Subtraction CT Angiography for the Evaluation of Lower Extremity Artery Disease with Severe Arterial Calcification.
Article in Journal of cardiovascular development and disease, 2025. 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
(1) Background: Peripheral arterial CT angiography (CTA) is an alternative to conventional angiography for diagnosing lower extremity artery disease (LEAD). However, severe arterial calcifications often hinder accurate assessment of arterial stenosis. This study evaluated the diagnostic performance of subtraction CTA with volume position matching compared to conventional CTA, using invasive digital subtraction angiography (DSA) as the gold standard. (2) Methods: Thirty-two patients with LEAD (mean age: 69.6 ± 10.8 years; M/F = 28:4) underwent subtraction CTA and DSA. The arterial tree was divided into 20 segments per patient, excluding segments with a history of bypass surgery. Subtraction was performed separately for each limb using volume position matching. Maximum intensity projections were reconstructed from both conventional and subtraction CTA data. Percent stenosis per arterial segment was measured using calipers and compared with DSA. Segments were classified as stenotic (>50% luminal narrowing) or not, with heavily calcified or stented segments assigned as incorrect. (3) Results: Of 640 segments, 636 were analyzed. Subtraction CTA and conventional CTA left 13 (2.0%) and 160 (25.2%) segments uninterpretable, respectively. Diagnostic accuracies (accuracy, precision, recall, macro F1 score) for subtraction CTA were 0.885, 0.884, 0.936, and 0.909, compared to 0.657, 0.744, 0.675, and 0.708 for conventional CTA. (4) Conclusions: Subtraction CTA with volume position matching is feasible and achieves high diagnostic accuracy in patients with severe calcific sclerosis.
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.