Impact of analyzing less image frames per segment for radiofrequency-based volumetric intravascular ultrasound measurements in mild-to-moderate coronary atherosclerosis

Volumetric radiofrequency-based intravascular ultrasound (RF–IVUS) data of coronary segments are increasingly used as endpoints in serial trials of novel anti-atherosclerotic therapies. In a relatively time-consuming process, vessel and lumen contours are defined; these contours are first automatically detected, then visually checked, and finally (in most cases) manually edited to generate reliable volumetric data of vessel geometry and plaque composition. Reduction in number of cross-sectional images for volumetric analysis could save analysis time but may also increase measurement variability of volumetric data. To assess whether a 50% reduction in number of frames per segment (every second frame) alters the reproducibility of volumetric measurements, we performed repeated RF–IVUS analyses of 15 coronary segments with mild-to-moderate atherosclerosis (20.2 ± 0.2 mm-long segments with 46 ± 13% plaque burden). Volumes were calculated based on a total of 731 image frames. Reducing the number of cross-sectional image frames for volumetric measurements saved analysis time (38 ± 9 vs. 68 ± 17 min/segment; P < 0.0001) and resulted for only a few parameters in (borderline) significant but mild differences versus measurements based on all frames (fibrous volume, P < 0.05; necrotic-core volume, P = 0.07). Compared to the intra-observer variability, there was a mild increase in measurement variability for most geometrical and compositional volumetric RF–IVUS parameters. In RF–IVUS studies of mild-to-moderate coronary disease, analyzing less image frames saved analysis time, left most volumetric parameters greatly unaffected, and resulted in a no more than mild increase in measurement variability of volumetric data

Reproducibility of volumetric intravascular ultrasound radiofrequency-based analysis of coronary plaque composition in vivo

Intravascular ultrasound radiofrequency (RF-IVUS) data permit the analysis of coronary plaque composition in vivo and is used as an endpoint of ongoing pharmacological intervention trials. We assessed the reproducibility of volumetric RF-IVUS analyses in mild-to-moderately diseased atherosclerotic human coronary arteries in vivo. A total of 9,212 IVUS analyses on cross-sectional IVUS frames was performed to evaluate the reproducibility of volumetric RF-IVUS measurements in 33 coronary segments with a length of 27 ± 7 mm. For vessel, lumen, and plaque + media volume the relative measurement differences (P = NS for all) were (A = intraobserver comparison, same pullback) −0.40 ± 1.0%; −0.48 ± 1.4%; −0.35 ± 1.6%, (B = intraobserver comparison, repeated pullback) −0.42 ± 1.2%; −0.52 ± 1.8%; −0.43 ± 4.5% (C = interobserver comparison, same pullback) 0.71 ± 1.8%; 0.71 ± 2.2%, and 0.89 ± 5.0%, respectively. For fibrous, fibro-lipidic, calcium, and necrotic-core volumes the relative measurement differences (P = NS for all) were (A) 0.45 ± 2.1%; −1.12 ± 4.9%; −0.84 ± 2.1%; −0.22 ± 1.8%, (B) 1.40 ± 4.1%; 1.26 ± 6.7%; 2.66 ± 7.4%; 0.85 ± 4.4%, and (C) −1.60 ± 4.9%; 3.85 ± 8.2%; 1.66 ± 7.5%, and −1.58 ± 4.7%, respectively. Of note, necrotic-core volume showed on average the lowest measurement variability. Thus, in mild-to-moderate atherosclerotic coronary artery disease the reproducibility of volumetric compositional RF-IVUS measurements from the same pullback is relatively high, but lower than the reproducibility of geometrical IVUS measurements. Measurements from repeated pullbacks and by different observers show acceptable reproducibilities; the volumetric measurement of the necrotic-core shows on average the highest reproducibility of the compositional RF-IVUS measurement

Variation in Structure and Process of Care in Traumatic Brain Injury: Provider Profiles of European Neurotrauma Centers Participating in the CENTER-TBI Study.

INTRODUCTION: The strength of evidence underpinning care and treatment recommendations in traumatic brain injury (TBI) is low. Comparative effectiveness research (CER) has been proposed as a framework to provide evidence for optimal care for TBI patients. The first step in CER is to map the existing variation. The aim of current study is to quantify variation in general structural and process characteristics among centers participating in the Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) study. METHODS: We designed a set of 11 provider profiling questionnaires with 321 questions about various aspects of TBI care, chosen based on literature and expert opinion. After pilot testing, questionnaires were disseminated to 71 centers from 20 countries participating in the CENTER-TBI study. Reliability of questionnaires was estimated by calculating a concordance rate among 5% duplicate questions. RESULTS: All 71 centers completed the questionnaires. Median concordance rate among duplicate questions was 0.85. The majority of centers were academic hospitals (n = 65, 92%), designated as a level I trauma center (n = 48, 68%) and situated in an urban location (n = 70, 99%). The availability of facilities for neuro-trauma care varied across centers; e.g. 40 (57%) had a dedicated neuro-intensive care unit (ICU), 36 (51%) had an in-hospital rehabilitation unit and the organization of the ICU was closed in 64% (n = 45) of the centers. In addition, we found wide variation in processes of care, such as the ICU admission policy and intracranial pressure monitoring policy among centers. CONCLUSION: Even among high-volume, specialized neurotrauma centers there is substantial variation in structures and processes of TBI care. This variation provides an opportunity to study effectiveness of specific aspects of TBI care and to identify best practices with CER approaches