This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Gurley, J. C. Articles by DeMaria, A. N. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Gurley, J. C. Articles by DeMaria, A. N.

Circulation, Vol 78, 1411-1420, Copyright © 1988 by American Heart Association

ARTICLES

Comparison of simultaneously performed digital and film-based angiography in assessment of coronary artery disease

JC Gurley, SE Nissen, DC Booth, M Harrison, P Grayburn, JL Elion and AN DeMaria
Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, University of Kentucky Medical Center, Lexington.

This study compared digital angiography (Digital) to conventional cineangiography (Cine) for the diagnosis and quantification of coronary artery disease. Digital and Cine were obtained simultaneously under identical radiographic conditions during routine coronary arteriography. Using visual inspection and manual calipers, four independent observers identified 131 stenoses in 18 patients with multivessel coronary disease. There was no difference in interobserver variability between Digital and Cine during multiple subgroup analyses. Overall, Digital yielded significantly greater estimates of stenosis severity than did either of two separate Cine observations (p less than 0.0001; average difference, 6.25%), but the differences fell below the level of statistical significance when only the group of stenoses 50% or greater were considered. Digital and Cine correlated well for the assessment of stenosis severity (r = 0.88), but linear regression comparisons of multiple subgroups consistently indicated modest overestimation of Cine by Digital. Smaller vessels, branch vessels, and mild lesions increased the likelihood of overestimation by Digital. Digital was highly sensitive for identification of clinically relevant stenoses, but less specific and less predictive than a second observation of Cine. Our results indicate that Digital and Cine are not interchangeable imaging techniques and that potential differences must be considered when Digital is used for clinical decision making.