Reproducibility of the 2020 Society for Vascular Surgery/Society of Thoracic Surgeons Reporting Standards for Uncomplicated Type B Aortic Dissection.

IF 4.5 Q1 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING
Apichaya Sriprachyakul, Domenico Mastrodicasa, Martin J Willemink, Gabriel Mistelbauer, Jody Shen, Issac Yang, Richard L Hallett, Sachin B Malik, Mohammad H Madani, Kendrick M Lai, Virginia Hinostroza, Jordan R Stern, Kenneth Tran, Jason T Lee, A Claire Watkins, John W MacArthur, R Scott Mitchell, D Craig Miller, Dominik Fleischmann
{"title":"Reproducibility of the 2020 Society for Vascular Surgery/Society of Thoracic Surgeons Reporting Standards for Uncomplicated Type B Aortic Dissection.","authors":"Apichaya Sriprachyakul, Domenico Mastrodicasa, Martin J Willemink, Gabriel Mistelbauer, Jody Shen, Issac Yang, Richard L Hallett, Sachin B Malik, Mohammad H Madani, Kendrick M Lai, Virginia Hinostroza, Jordan R Stern, Kenneth Tran, Jason T Lee, A Claire Watkins, John W MacArthur, R Scott Mitchell, D Craig Miller, Dominik Fleischmann","doi":"10.1148/ryct.240325","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Purpose To assess the inter- and intrareader agreement of the 2020 Society for Vascular Surgery/Society of Thoracic Surgeons (SVS/STS) reporting standards in patients with acute uncomplicated type B aortic dissection (uTBAD). Materials and Methods CT angiograms, obtained between January 2001 and December 2013, from 37 patients (mean age ± SD, 48.5 years ± 15.6; 24 male) with uTBAD were retrospectively reviewed by 14 cardiovascular radiologists and surgeons. The entry tear and proximal and distal extent of each dissection were allocated to aortic zones according to the 2020 SVS/STS reporting standards. Inter- and intrareader agreement was assessed using Cohen κ. Causes of discrepant classifications were analyzed. Results Interreader agreement among all 14 readers (eight radiologists, four cardiothoracic surgeons, and two vascular surgeons) were fair for the entry tear (к = 0.33, 0.40, 0.22, and 0.40), poor to moderate for the proximal extent (к = 0.30, 0.37, 0.20, and 0.41), and moderate to substantial for the distal dissection extent (к = 0.65, 0.80, 0.41, and 0.77). Interreader agreement between individuals was poor to substantial for the entry tear (к = 0.04-0.71; 78% discrepancy) and proximal extent (к = 0.00-0.62; 68% discrepancy), and fair to excellent for the distal extent (к = 0.33-0.92; 35% discrepancy). The causes for discrepancies were unclear definitions of aortic zones, anatomic complexity of lesions, and poor image quality. Intrareader agreement was moderate for the entry tear (к = 0.41-0.57), fair to moderate for the proximal extent (к = 0.37-0.58), and substantial to excellent for the distal extent (к = 0.66-0.92). Conclusion The 2020 SVS/STS reporting standards for acute uTBAD were poorly reproducible among experienced cardiovascular radiologists and surgeons. <b>Keywords:</b> Vascular, Aorta, Dissection, Aortic Dissection, SVS/STS Reporting Standards, CT Angiography, Interobserver Study, Intraobserver Study <i>Supplemental material is available for this article.</i> © RSNA, 2025.</p>","PeriodicalId":21168,"journal":{"name":"Radiology. Cardiothoracic imaging","volume":"7 6","pages":"e240325"},"PeriodicalIF":4.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12728517/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Radiology. Cardiothoracic imaging","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1148/ryct.240325","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose To assess the inter- and intrareader agreement of the 2020 Society for Vascular Surgery/Society of Thoracic Surgeons (SVS/STS) reporting standards in patients with acute uncomplicated type B aortic dissection (uTBAD). Materials and Methods CT angiograms, obtained between January 2001 and December 2013, from 37 patients (mean age ± SD, 48.5 years ± 15.6; 24 male) with uTBAD were retrospectively reviewed by 14 cardiovascular radiologists and surgeons. The entry tear and proximal and distal extent of each dissection were allocated to aortic zones according to the 2020 SVS/STS reporting standards. Inter- and intrareader agreement was assessed using Cohen κ. Causes of discrepant classifications were analyzed. Results Interreader agreement among all 14 readers (eight radiologists, four cardiothoracic surgeons, and two vascular surgeons) were fair for the entry tear (к = 0.33, 0.40, 0.22, and 0.40), poor to moderate for the proximal extent (к = 0.30, 0.37, 0.20, and 0.41), and moderate to substantial for the distal dissection extent (к = 0.65, 0.80, 0.41, and 0.77). Interreader agreement between individuals was poor to substantial for the entry tear (к = 0.04-0.71; 78% discrepancy) and proximal extent (к = 0.00-0.62; 68% discrepancy), and fair to excellent for the distal extent (к = 0.33-0.92; 35% discrepancy). The causes for discrepancies were unclear definitions of aortic zones, anatomic complexity of lesions, and poor image quality. Intrareader agreement was moderate for the entry tear (к = 0.41-0.57), fair to moderate for the proximal extent (к = 0.37-0.58), and substantial to excellent for the distal extent (к = 0.66-0.92). Conclusion The 2020 SVS/STS reporting standards for acute uTBAD were poorly reproducible among experienced cardiovascular radiologists and surgeons. Keywords: Vascular, Aorta, Dissection, Aortic Dissection, SVS/STS Reporting Standards, CT Angiography, Interobserver Study, Intraobserver Study Supplemental material is available for this article. © RSNA, 2025.

2020年血管外科学会/胸外科学会无并发症B型主动脉夹层报告标准的可重复性
目的评估2020年血管外科学会/胸外科学会(SVS/STS)急性无并发症B型主动脉夹层(uTBAD)患者报告标准的读者间和读者内一致性。材料与方法由14位心血管放射科医师和外科医生回顾性分析2001年1月至2013年12月37例uTBAD患者(平均年龄±SD, 48.5岁±15.6岁,男性24例)的CT血管造影。根据2020年SVS/STS报告标准,将入口撕裂和各夹层的近端和远端程度分配到主动脉区。使用Cohen κ评估阅读器间和阅读器内的一致性。分析了分类差异的原因。结果所有14名解读者(8名放射科医生、4名心胸外科医生和2名血管外科医生)的解读一致性对进入性撕裂是一般的(χ = 0.33、0.40、0.22和0.40),对近端剥离程度是差到中等(χ = 0.30、0.37、0.20和0.41),对远端剥离程度是中等到相当(χ = 0.65、0.80、0.41和0.77)。个体间解读者的一致性在进入裂口(χ = 0.04-0.71, 78%差异)和近端裂口(χ = 0.00-0.62, 68%差异)上从差到好,在远端裂口(χ = 0.33-0.92, 35%差异)上从好到好。造成差异的原因是主动脉区定义不清、病变解剖复杂性和图像质量差。读内一致性为中等(0.41-0.57),中等至中等(0.37-0.58),相当至优异的远端(0.66-0.92)。结论2020年急性uTBAD SVS/STS报告标准在经验丰富的心血管放射科医师和外科医生中可重复性较差。关键词:血管,主动脉,夹层,主动脉夹层,SVS/STS报告标准,CT血管造影,观察者间研究,观察者内研究©rsna, 2025。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
20.40
自引率
1.40%
发文量
0
期刊介绍:
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书