Comparison of Magnetic Resonance Angiography and Digital Subtraction Angiography for the Assessment of Infrapopliteal Arterial Occlusive Lesions, Based on the TASC II Classification Criteria
(2020) In Diagnostics 10(11).- Abstract
This paper aimed to study the agreement and repeatability, both intra- and interobserver, of infrapopliteal lesion assessment with magnetic resonance angiography (MRA), using the TransAtlantic Inter-Society Consensus (TASC) II criteria, with perioperative digital subtraction angiography (DSA) as a reference. Sixty-eight patients with an MRA preceding an endovascular infrapopliteal revascularization were included. Preoperative MRAs and perioperative DSAs were evaluated in random order by three independent observers using the TASC II classification. The results were analyzed using visual grading characteristics (VGC) analysis and Krippendorff's α. No systematic difference was found between modalities: area under the VGC curve (AUCVGC) =... (More)
This paper aimed to study the agreement and repeatability, both intra- and interobserver, of infrapopliteal lesion assessment with magnetic resonance angiography (MRA), using the TransAtlantic Inter-Society Consensus (TASC) II criteria, with perioperative digital subtraction angiography (DSA) as a reference. Sixty-eight patients with an MRA preceding an endovascular infrapopliteal revascularization were included. Preoperative MRAs and perioperative DSAs were evaluated in random order by three independent observers using the TASC II classification. The results were analyzed using visual grading characteristics (VGC) analysis and Krippendorff's α. No systematic difference was found between modalities: area under the VGC curve (AUCVGC) = 0.48 (p = 0.58) or intraobserver; AUCVGC for Observer 1 and 2 respectively, 0.49 (p = 0.85) and 0.53 (p = 0.52) for MRA compared with 0.54 (p = 0.30) and 0.49 (p = 0.81) for DSA. Interobserver differences were seen: AUCVGC of 0.63 (p < 0.01) for DSA and 0.80 (p < 0.01) for MRA. These results were confirmed using Krippendorff's α for the three observers showing 0.13 (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.07-0.31) for MRA and 0.39 (95% CI 0.23-0.53) for DSA. Poor interobserver agreement was also found in the choice of a target vessel on preoperative MRA: Krippendorff's α = 0.19 (95% CI 0.01‒0.36). In conclusion, infrapopliteal lesions can be reliably determined on preoperative MRA, but interobserver variability regarding the choice of a target vessel is a major concern that appears to affect the overall TASC II grade.
(Less)
- author
- Baubeta Fridh, Erik LU ; Ludwigs, Karin ; Svalkvist, Angelica ; Andersson, Manne ; Nordanstig, Joakim ; Falkenberg, Mårten and Johnsson, Åse A
- organization
- publishing date
- 2020-10-31
- type
- Contribution to journal
- publication status
- published
- subject
- in
- Diagnostics
- volume
- 10
- issue
- 11
- article number
- 892
- publisher
- MDPI AG
- external identifiers
-
- scopus:85106434732
- pmid:33142848
- ISSN
- 2075-4418
- DOI
- 10.3390/diagnostics10110892
- language
- English
- LU publication?
- yes
- id
- b75c2260-153d-49f0-ba81-a04d305546a1
- date added to LUP
- 2021-02-04 13:33:42
- date last changed
- 2024-09-19 15:55:53
@article{b75c2260-153d-49f0-ba81-a04d305546a1, abstract = {{<p>This paper aimed to study the agreement and repeatability, both intra- and interobserver, of infrapopliteal lesion assessment with magnetic resonance angiography (MRA), using the TransAtlantic Inter-Society Consensus (TASC) II criteria, with perioperative digital subtraction angiography (DSA) as a reference. Sixty-eight patients with an MRA preceding an endovascular infrapopliteal revascularization were included. Preoperative MRAs and perioperative DSAs were evaluated in random order by three independent observers using the TASC II classification. The results were analyzed using visual grading characteristics (VGC) analysis and Krippendorff's α. No systematic difference was found between modalities: area under the VGC curve (AUCVGC) = 0.48 (p = 0.58) or intraobserver; AUCVGC for Observer 1 and 2 respectively, 0.49 (p = 0.85) and 0.53 (p = 0.52) for MRA compared with 0.54 (p = 0.30) and 0.49 (p = 0.81) for DSA. Interobserver differences were seen: AUCVGC of 0.63 (p < 0.01) for DSA and 0.80 (p < 0.01) for MRA. These results were confirmed using Krippendorff's α for the three observers showing 0.13 (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.07-0.31) for MRA and 0.39 (95% CI 0.23-0.53) for DSA. Poor interobserver agreement was also found in the choice of a target vessel on preoperative MRA: Krippendorff's α = 0.19 (95% CI 0.01‒0.36). In conclusion, infrapopliteal lesions can be reliably determined on preoperative MRA, but interobserver variability regarding the choice of a target vessel is a major concern that appears to affect the overall TASC II grade.</p>}}, author = {{Baubeta Fridh, Erik and Ludwigs, Karin and Svalkvist, Angelica and Andersson, Manne and Nordanstig, Joakim and Falkenberg, Mårten and Johnsson, Åse A}}, issn = {{2075-4418}}, language = {{eng}}, month = {{10}}, number = {{11}}, publisher = {{MDPI AG}}, series = {{Diagnostics}}, title = {{Comparison of Magnetic Resonance Angiography and Digital Subtraction Angiography for the Assessment of Infrapopliteal Arterial Occlusive Lesions, Based on the TASC II Classification Criteria}}, url = {{http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics10110892}}, doi = {{10.3390/diagnostics10110892}}, volume = {{10}}, year = {{2020}}, }