Reliability of the Diagnosis of Cerebral Vasospasm Using Catheter Cerebral Angiography: A Systematic Review and Inter- and Intraobserver Study.
Journal
AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology
ISSN: 1936-959X
Titre abrégé: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8003708
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
03 2021
03 2021
Historique:
received:
09
07
2020
accepted:
24
09
2020
pubmed:
30
1
2021
medline:
18
5
2021
entrez:
29
1
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Conventional angiography is the benchmark examination to diagnose cerebral vasospasm, but there is limited evidence regarding its reliability. Our goals were the following: 1) to systematically review the literature on the reliability of the diagnosis of cerebral vasospasm using conventional angiography, and 2) to perform an agreement study among clinicians who perform endovascular treatment. Articles reporting a classification system on the degree of cerebral vasospasm on conventional angiography were systematically searched, and agreement studies were identified. We assembled a portfolio of 221 cases of patients with subarachnoid hemorrhage and asked 17 raters with different backgrounds (radiology, neurosurgery, or neurology) and experience (junior ≤10 and senior >10 years) to independently evaluate cerebral vasospasm in 7 vessel segments using a 3-point scale and to evaluate, for each case, whether findings would justify endovascular treatment. Nine raters took part in the intraobserver reliability study. The systematic review showed a very heterogeneous literature, with 140 studies using 60 different nomenclatures and 21 different thresholds to define cerebral vasospasm, and 5 interobserver studies reporting a wide range of reliability (κ = 0.14-0.87). In our study, only senior raters reached substantial agreement (κ ≥ 0.6) on vasospasm of the supraclinoid ICA, M1, and basilar segments and only when assessments were dichotomized (presence or absence of ≥50% narrowing). Agreement on whether to proceed with endovascular management of vasospasm was only fair (κ ≤ 0.4). Research on cerebral vasospasm would benefit from standardization of definitions and thresholds. Dichotomized decisions by experienced readers are required for the reliable angiographic diagnosis of cerebral vasospasm.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
Conventional angiography is the benchmark examination to diagnose cerebral vasospasm, but there is limited evidence regarding its reliability. Our goals were the following: 1) to systematically review the literature on the reliability of the diagnosis of cerebral vasospasm using conventional angiography, and 2) to perform an agreement study among clinicians who perform endovascular treatment.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Articles reporting a classification system on the degree of cerebral vasospasm on conventional angiography were systematically searched, and agreement studies were identified. We assembled a portfolio of 221 cases of patients with subarachnoid hemorrhage and asked 17 raters with different backgrounds (radiology, neurosurgery, or neurology) and experience (junior ≤10 and senior >10 years) to independently evaluate cerebral vasospasm in 7 vessel segments using a 3-point scale and to evaluate, for each case, whether findings would justify endovascular treatment. Nine raters took part in the intraobserver reliability study.
RESULTS
The systematic review showed a very heterogeneous literature, with 140 studies using 60 different nomenclatures and 21 different thresholds to define cerebral vasospasm, and 5 interobserver studies reporting a wide range of reliability (κ = 0.14-0.87). In our study, only senior raters reached substantial agreement (κ ≥ 0.6) on vasospasm of the supraclinoid ICA, M1, and basilar segments and only when assessments were dichotomized (presence or absence of ≥50% narrowing). Agreement on whether to proceed with endovascular management of vasospasm was only fair (κ ≤ 0.4).
CONCLUSIONS
Research on cerebral vasospasm would benefit from standardization of definitions and thresholds. Dichotomized decisions by experienced readers are required for the reliable angiographic diagnosis of cerebral vasospasm.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33509923
pii: ajnr.A7021
doi: 10.3174/ajnr.A7021
pmc: PMC7959441
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
501-507Informations de copyright
© 2021 by American Journal of Neuroradiology.
Références
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2007 Apr;28(4):750-8
pubmed: 17416833
Stroke. 2020 Apr;51(4):1142-1149
pubmed: 32138631
BMJ. 1989 Mar 11;298(6674):636-42
pubmed: 2496789
Neuroradiology. 2005 Feb;47(2):134-43
pubmed: 15703930
Acta Neurochir (Wien). 1989;100(1-2):12-24
pubmed: 2683600
J Neurosurg. 2006 Aug;105(2):220-7
pubmed: 17219826
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2020 Apr;41(4):612-618
pubmed: 32217551
J Clin Epidemiol. 2009 Oct;62(10):e1-34
pubmed: 19631507
Lancet Neurol. 2011 Jul;10(7):618-25
pubmed: 21640651
World Neurosurg. 2019 Jun;126:513-527
pubmed: 30898740
Acta Neurochir (Wien). 1987;87(1-2):54-7
pubmed: 3673683
Stroke. 2011 Apr;42(4):924-9
pubmed: 21311062
Nat Rev Neurol. 2014 Jan;10(1):44-58
pubmed: 24323051
Neurosurgery. 1999 Jun;44(6):1237-47; discussion 1247-8
pubmed: 10371622
Neurocrit Care. 2010 Dec;13(3):416-24
pubmed: 20838933
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2011 Dec;32(11):2047-53
pubmed: 21960495
Stroke. 2008 Jun;39(6):1759-65
pubmed: 18420953
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2017 Mar;38(3):561-567
pubmed: 27979797
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2019 Mar;49(3):800-807
pubmed: 30284331
J Neurosurg. 1988 Apr;68(4):505-17
pubmed: 3280746
J Clin Epidemiol. 2011 Jan;64(1):96-106
pubmed: 21130355
J Neurosurg. 1999 Jul;91(1):51-8
pubmed: 10389880
Radiology. 2005 Aug;236(2):621-9
pubmed: 16040918