In vivo comparison of different quantitative edge detection systems used for measuring coronary arterial diameters

Abstract

Three different systems for quantitative coronary analysis [Cardiovascular Measurement System (CMS®); Polytron 1000® Angiographic Workstation (AWOS®)] were compared in 109 patients before and after coronary angioplasty and at follow‐up coronary angiography. Correlation coefficients were low and 95% limits of agreement were wide. In general, CMS® exhibited a tendency to yield lower values for very small diameters and higher values for larger vessels. The acute gain in minimal luminal diameter was considerably smaller when assessed by AWOS® as compared to Polytron® (0.52 vs. 0.71 mm, P < .0001) and to CMS® (0.52 vs. 0.75 mm, P < .0001). Long‐term gain was much larger when assessed by Polytron® as compared to AWOS® (18.8 vs. 11.5%, P < .001) and it was almost double for CMS® as compared to AWOS® (20.7 vs. 11.5%, P < .0001). In conclusion, in the individual patient very different results can be obtained when different QCA systems are used, and systematic differences between the systems are encountered.