Validation of a Novel Monitoring System to Measure Contrast Volume Use during Invasive Angiography

Anand Prasad, Irma Scholler, Daniel Levin, Gus Banda, Christopher M. Mullin, Steven R Bailey

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Multiple studies have demonstrated the relationship between contrast volume (CV) and the risk of acute kidney injury (AKI). Quantification of total CV is often estimated and therefore may be inaccurate. We describe validation of a novel contrast monitoring system (CMS) (Osprey Medical), which is designed to detect and display injection by injection and total CV use on a monitor system in real time. METHODS: Thirty patients undergoing a coronary or peripheral angiogram were included. Ten patients underwent procedures using the CMS only and 20 underwent procedures using both the CMS and the AVERT Plus contrast modulation system (Osprey Medical). Total CV used during these cases was measured using direct measurement via a graduated cylinder (CVDM). This was compared with the CMS-reported CV and with the operator's assessment of CV (CVPE) used during the case. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Pearson correlation coefficient (PCC) were used for analysis and the results displayed using Bland-Altman plots. RESULTS: Twenty-one cases were diagnostic and 9 were interventional. The ICC/PCC (confidence interval [CI]) for the comparison of CVDM to CMS and CVPE were 0.96/0.97 [CI, 0.94-0.99] and 0.89/0.90 [CI, 0.80-0.95], respectively, with a P=.01 for difference between the correlations. The average absolute difference between the CVDM and CMS readout and the CVPE was 12.0 ± 13.7 mL and 22.8 ± 15.3 mL, respectively; P=.01. CONCLUSIONS: The CMS was accurate when compared with the direct measurement of CV used. This accuracy was superior to physician estimation of CV.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)105-108
Number of pages4
JournalJournal of Invasive Cardiology
Volume29
Issue number3
StatePublished - Mar 1 2017

Fingerprint

Angiography
Confidence Intervals
Injections
Computer Systems
Acute Kidney Injury
Physicians

Keywords

  • contrast media
  • contrast-induced nephropathy
  • new device

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging
  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Cite this

Validation of a Novel Monitoring System to Measure Contrast Volume Use during Invasive Angiography. / Prasad, Anand; Scholler, Irma; Levin, Daniel; Banda, Gus; Mullin, Christopher M.; Bailey, Steven R.

In: Journal of Invasive Cardiology, Vol. 29, No. 3, 01.03.2017, p. 105-108.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Prasad, Anand ; Scholler, Irma ; Levin, Daniel ; Banda, Gus ; Mullin, Christopher M. ; Bailey, Steven R. / Validation of a Novel Monitoring System to Measure Contrast Volume Use during Invasive Angiography. In: Journal of Invasive Cardiology. 2017 ; Vol. 29, No. 3. pp. 105-108.
@article{b758f27098be45d7a56a99434626e288,
title = "Validation of a Novel Monitoring System to Measure Contrast Volume Use during Invasive Angiography",
abstract = "BACKGROUND: Multiple studies have demonstrated the relationship between contrast volume (CV) and the risk of acute kidney injury (AKI). Quantification of total CV is often estimated and therefore may be inaccurate. We describe validation of a novel contrast monitoring system (CMS) (Osprey Medical), which is designed to detect and display injection by injection and total CV use on a monitor system in real time. METHODS: Thirty patients undergoing a coronary or peripheral angiogram were included. Ten patients underwent procedures using the CMS only and 20 underwent procedures using both the CMS and the AVERT Plus contrast modulation system (Osprey Medical). Total CV used during these cases was measured using direct measurement via a graduated cylinder (CVDM). This was compared with the CMS-reported CV and with the operator's assessment of CV (CVPE) used during the case. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Pearson correlation coefficient (PCC) were used for analysis and the results displayed using Bland-Altman plots. RESULTS: Twenty-one cases were diagnostic and 9 were interventional. The ICC/PCC (confidence interval [CI]) for the comparison of CVDM to CMS and CVPE were 0.96/0.97 [CI, 0.94-0.99] and 0.89/0.90 [CI, 0.80-0.95], respectively, with a P=.01 for difference between the correlations. The average absolute difference between the CVDM and CMS readout and the CVPE was 12.0 ± 13.7 mL and 22.8 ± 15.3 mL, respectively; P=.01. CONCLUSIONS: The CMS was accurate when compared with the direct measurement of CV used. This accuracy was superior to physician estimation of CV.",
keywords = "contrast media, contrast-induced nephropathy, new device",
author = "Anand Prasad and Irma Scholler and Daniel Levin and Gus Banda and Mullin, {Christopher M.} and Bailey, {Steven R}",
year = "2017",
month = "3",
day = "1",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "29",
pages = "105--108",
journal = "Journal of Invasive Cardiology",
issn = "1042-3931",
publisher = "HMP Communications",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Validation of a Novel Monitoring System to Measure Contrast Volume Use during Invasive Angiography

AU - Prasad, Anand

AU - Scholler, Irma

AU - Levin, Daniel

AU - Banda, Gus

AU - Mullin, Christopher M.

AU - Bailey, Steven R

PY - 2017/3/1

Y1 - 2017/3/1

N2 - BACKGROUND: Multiple studies have demonstrated the relationship between contrast volume (CV) and the risk of acute kidney injury (AKI). Quantification of total CV is often estimated and therefore may be inaccurate. We describe validation of a novel contrast monitoring system (CMS) (Osprey Medical), which is designed to detect and display injection by injection and total CV use on a monitor system in real time. METHODS: Thirty patients undergoing a coronary or peripheral angiogram were included. Ten patients underwent procedures using the CMS only and 20 underwent procedures using both the CMS and the AVERT Plus contrast modulation system (Osprey Medical). Total CV used during these cases was measured using direct measurement via a graduated cylinder (CVDM). This was compared with the CMS-reported CV and with the operator's assessment of CV (CVPE) used during the case. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Pearson correlation coefficient (PCC) were used for analysis and the results displayed using Bland-Altman plots. RESULTS: Twenty-one cases were diagnostic and 9 were interventional. The ICC/PCC (confidence interval [CI]) for the comparison of CVDM to CMS and CVPE were 0.96/0.97 [CI, 0.94-0.99] and 0.89/0.90 [CI, 0.80-0.95], respectively, with a P=.01 for difference between the correlations. The average absolute difference between the CVDM and CMS readout and the CVPE was 12.0 ± 13.7 mL and 22.8 ± 15.3 mL, respectively; P=.01. CONCLUSIONS: The CMS was accurate when compared with the direct measurement of CV used. This accuracy was superior to physician estimation of CV.

AB - BACKGROUND: Multiple studies have demonstrated the relationship between contrast volume (CV) and the risk of acute kidney injury (AKI). Quantification of total CV is often estimated and therefore may be inaccurate. We describe validation of a novel contrast monitoring system (CMS) (Osprey Medical), which is designed to detect and display injection by injection and total CV use on a monitor system in real time. METHODS: Thirty patients undergoing a coronary or peripheral angiogram were included. Ten patients underwent procedures using the CMS only and 20 underwent procedures using both the CMS and the AVERT Plus contrast modulation system (Osprey Medical). Total CV used during these cases was measured using direct measurement via a graduated cylinder (CVDM). This was compared with the CMS-reported CV and with the operator's assessment of CV (CVPE) used during the case. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Pearson correlation coefficient (PCC) were used for analysis and the results displayed using Bland-Altman plots. RESULTS: Twenty-one cases were diagnostic and 9 were interventional. The ICC/PCC (confidence interval [CI]) for the comparison of CVDM to CMS and CVPE were 0.96/0.97 [CI, 0.94-0.99] and 0.89/0.90 [CI, 0.80-0.95], respectively, with a P=.01 for difference between the correlations. The average absolute difference between the CVDM and CMS readout and the CVPE was 12.0 ± 13.7 mL and 22.8 ± 15.3 mL, respectively; P=.01. CONCLUSIONS: The CMS was accurate when compared with the direct measurement of CV used. This accuracy was superior to physician estimation of CV.

KW - contrast media

KW - contrast-induced nephropathy

KW - new device

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85014579911&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85014579911&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 28208118

AN - SCOPUS:85014579911

VL - 29

SP - 105

EP - 108

JO - Journal of Invasive Cardiology

JF - Journal of Invasive Cardiology

SN - 1042-3931

IS - 3

ER -