Angioplasty, Balloon, Coronary ; adverse effects ; methods ; Drug-Eluting Stents ; Humans ; Paclitaxel ; therapeutic use

BACKGROUND: Previously, we developed a novel Coronary Artery Tree description and Lesion EvaluaTion (CatLet©) angiographic scoring system, which was capable of accounting for the variability in the coronary anatomy and assisting in the risk-stratification of patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Our preliminary study revealed that the CatLet score better predicted clinical outcomes for AMI patients than the Synergy between Percutaneous Coronary Intervention with Taxus and Cardiac Surgery score. However, the reproducibility of the CatLet score in both inter- and intra-observer remains to be evaluated. METHODS: A total of 30 consecutive AMI patients, admitted in September of 2015, were independently assessed by two experienced interventional cardiologists to evaluate the inter-observer reproducibility of the CatLet score. Another set of 49 consecutive AMI patients, admitted between September and October in 2014, were assessed by one of the two interventional cardiologists on two occasions 3 months apart to evaluate the intra-observer reproducibility of the CatLet score. The weighted kappa was used to express the degree of agreement. RESULTS: The weighted kappa values (95% confidence interval) for the intra- and inter-observer reproducibility of the CatLet Score were 0.82 (0.59-1.00, Z = 7.23, P < 0.001) and 0.86 (0.54-1.00, Z = 5.20, P < 0.001), respectively, according to the tertile analysis (≤14, 15-22, >22). Regarding the adverse characteristics pertinent to lesions and dominance parameters, the kappa values for the inter-observer variability were 0.80 (0.56-1.00, Z = 6.47, P < 0.001) for total number of lesions, 0.57 (0.28-0.85, Z = 3.03, P < 0.001) for bifurcation, 0.69 (0.43-0.96, Z = 5.06, P < 0.001) for heavy calcification, 1.00 (0.72-1.00, Z = 6.93, P < 0.001) for tortuosity, 0.54 (0.26-0.82, Z = 3.78, P < 0.001) for thrombus, 0.69 (0.48-0.91, Z = 6.29, P < 0.001) for right coronary artery dominance, 0.69 (0.41-0.96, Z = 4.91, P < 0.001) for left anterior descending artery length, and 0.22 (0.06-0.51, Z = 1.56, P = 0.06) for diagonal size. Equivalent values for the intra-observer variability were moderate to almost perfect (range 0.54-1.00). CONCLUSIONS The reproducibility of the CatLet angiographic scoring system for evaluation of the coronary angiograms ranged from substantial to excellent. The high reproducibility of the CatLet angiographic scoring system will boost its clinical application to patients with AMI.
Coronary Angiography ; Coronary Artery Disease ; Humans ; Myocardial Infarction/diagnostic imaging* ; Observer Variation ; Reproducibility of Results ; Treatment Outcome ; Trees

Objective: To compare the application effect of the colonoscopy, fecal immunochemical test (FIT) and novel risk-adapted screening approach in colorectal cancer screening in Xuzhou population. Methods: From May 2018 to April 2019, 4 280 subjects aged 50-74 were recruited from Gulou district, Yunlong district and Quanshan district of Xuzhou. They were randomly assigned to the colonoscopy group (n=863), FIT group (n=1 723) and novel risk-adapted screening approach group (n=1 694) according to the ratio of 1∶2∶2. For the novel risk-adapted screening approach group, after the risk assessment, high-risk subjects were invited to undergo colonoscopy and low-risk subjects were invited to undergo FIT examination. All FIT positive subjects were invited to undergo colonoscopy. Colonoscopy participation rate [(the number of colonoscopies completed/the number of colonoscopies invited to participate)×100%], detection rate of colorectal lesions [(the number of diagnosed patients/the number of colonoscopies completed)×100%], colonoscopy resource load (the number of colonoscopies completed/the number of diagnosed advanced tumors) and FIT resource load in each group were calculated and compared. Results: The age of all subjects was (61±6) years old, including 1 816 males (42.43%). There was no statistically significant difference in the socio-demographic characteristics of the subjects in different screening groups. The colonoscopy participation rate was 22.60% (195/863) in the colonoscopy group, 57.04% (77/135) in the FIT group, and 33.94% (149/439) in the novel risk-adapted screening approach group, respectively. The colonoscopy participation rate was higher in the FIT group than in the colonoscopy group and the novel risk-adapted screening approach group (P<0.001). The colonoscopy participation rate of novel risk-adapted screening group was significantly higher than the colonoscopy group (P<0.001). The detection rates of advanced tumors were 6.67% (13/195), 9.09% (7/77) and 8.72% (13/149), respectively, and the difference was not statistically significant (P>0.05). The colonoscopy resource load (95%CI) was 15 (13-17) in the colonoscopy group, 11 (9-14) in the FIT group and 11 (10-13) in the novel risk-adapted screening approach group, respectively. Among them, the colonoscopy resource load of high-risk individuals in the novel risk-adapted screening approach group was 12 (9-15). FIT resource loads (95%CI) were 207 (196-218) and 88 (83-94) in the FIT group and the novel risk-adapted screening approach group. Conclusion: The combined application of risk-adapted screening approach and FIT may have a good application effect in colorectal cancer screening.
Aged ; Colonoscopy ; Colorectal Neoplasms/pathology* ; Early Detection of Cancer ; Feces ; Female ; Humans ; Male ; Mass Screening ; Middle Aged ; Occult Blood