Variability in estimation of coronary dimensions from 6F and 8F catheters

• Published in: Catheterization and cardiovascular diagnosis Vol. 37; no. 1; pp. 39 - 45
• Main Authors: Legrand, Victor, Raskinet, Bruno, Martinez, Christophe, Kulbertus, Henri
• Format: Journal Article Web Resource
• Language: English
• Published: New York John Wiley & Sons, Inc 01-01-1996; John Wiley & Sons
• Subjects: angiography; angioplasty; Cardiovascular & respiratory systems; Coronary Angiography - instrumentation; coronary artery disease; Coronary Disease - diagnostic imaging; Human health sciences; Humans; Observer Variation; quantitative coronary angiography; Radiography, Interventional - instrumentation; Reproducibility of Results; Sciences de la santé humaine; Systèmes cardiovasculaire & respiratoire
• ISSN: 0098-6569; 1097-0304
• DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0304(199601)37:1<39::AID-CCD9>3.0.CO;2-5

To investigate the suitability of diagnostic 6F catheters for coronary angiographic measures in the clinical setting, we determined the relative accuracy and reproducibility of the measures obtained with these catheters as scaling devices in 59 stenoses. Comparison was made with duplicate injections, obtained before angioplasty, using an 8F guiding catheter as scaling device. Intra‐ and interobserver variability was evaluated in 15 stenoses. The coefficient of variation averaged 18.3% for the minimal lumen diameter, 10.4% for the percent stenosis, and only 7.4% for the reference diameter. Reproducibility of angiographic measures done with the 6F catheter was similar to that obtained with the 8F catheter, although accuracy was lower with the 6F for the measurement of reference diameter. Thus, quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) measures derived from routine diagnostic angiograms may be suitable for determination of reference diameter, allowing enough precision for determination of the size of a coronary device for intervention, but these measures may lack accuracy for precise determination of minimum diameter and percent stenosis, making their use questionable in studies looking at individual changes in coronary stenosis dimensions. © 1996 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.