Abstract
Digital analysis of cine film provides numerous options for altering images by frame averaging or filtering algorithms that either smooth or enhance edges. While these may subjectively enhance image quality, there is no uniformity in their use among laboratories and effects on quantitative coronary analysis may not be ideal. To determine which processing algorithms might help or hinder quantitative coronary arteriography, cine film images of precision drilled stenotic cylinders (0.83 to 1.83 mm diameter) implanted in dog coronary arteries were analyzed with and without such algorithms. Video frame averaging of 1 to 49 frames had no effect on measures of accuracy (mean differences) but precision (standard deviation of mean differences) was improved from 0.23 to 0.17 mm (p<0.05) with video averaging of ≥25 frames. Edge enhancement filtering algorithms resulted in slight deterioration of accuracy and precision and smoothing filtering algorithms caused modest improvements in these parameters; however, these changes were not significantly different from unprocessed images. Using edge enhancement filtering algorithms, accuracy was significantly worse (−0.27 mm) compared to a smoothing filter enhancement algorithm (−0.08 mm, p<0.001). The combination of video averaging and smoothing algorithms had no additional beneficial effects. Thus, precision of quantitative coronary analysis of cine film can be optimized by appropriate video averaging. Edge enhancement filtering algorithms should be avoided whereas smoothing filter enhancement algorithms may improve accuracy.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Mancini GBJ, Simon SB, McGillem MJ, LeFree MT, Friedman HZ, Vogel RA. Automated quantitative coronary arteriography: morphologic and physiologic validationin vivo of a rapid digital angiographic method. Circulation 1987; 75: 452–60.
Brown BG, Bolson EL, Dodge HT. Quantitative computer techniques for analyzing coronary arteriograms. Prog Cardivoasc Dis 1986; 28: 403.
Reiber JHC, Kooijman CJ, Slager CJ, Gerbrands JJ, Schuurbiers JCH, Den Boer A, Wijns W, Serruys PW. Computer assisted analysis of the severity of obstructions from coronary cineangiograms: a methodological review. Automedica 1984; 5: 219.
Kimme-Smith C, Gomes AS, Cochran ST, Barbaric ZL, Lois JF. Diagnostic effects of edge sharpening filtration and magnification on digitally subtracted renal images. Med Phys 1986; 13: 850–6.
LeFree MT, Simon SB, Mancini GBJ, Vogel RA. Digital radiographic assessment of coronary arterial diameter and videodensitometric crossectional area. Proc SPIE 1986; 626: 334.
Neter J, Wasserman W. Applied Linear Statistical Models. Homewood, Illinois, Richard D Irwin, Inc, 1974; 616–27.
Miller RG. Simultaneous Statistical Inference. 2nd Edition. New York, New York. Springer-Verlag, 1985; 81–90.
Snedecor GW, Cochran WG. Statistical Methods. 6th Edition. Ames, Iowa. Iowa State University Press, 1972; 195–7.
Fisher LD, Judkins MP, Cameron LJ, Swaye P, Ryan T, Maynard C, Bourassa M, Kennedy JW, Gosselin A, Kemp H, Faxon D, Wexler L, Davis KB. Reproducibility of coronary arteriographic reading in the Coronary Artery Surgery Study (CASS). Cathet Cardiovasc Diagn 1982; 8: 565–75.
Zir LM, Miller SW, Dinsmore E, Gilbert JP, Harthorne JW. Inter-observer variability in coronary angiography. Circulation 1976; 53: 627–32.
Arnett EN, Isner JM, Redwood DR, Kent KM, Baker WP, Ackerstein J, Roberts WC. Coronary artery narrowing in coronary heart disease: comparison of cineangiographic and necropsy findings. Ann Intern Med 1979; 91: 350–6.
DeRoun TA, Murray JA, Owen W. Variability in the analysis of coronary arteriograms. Circulation 1977; 55: 324–8.
Detre KM, Wright E, Murphy ML, Iakaro T. Observer agreement in evaluating coronary angiograms. Circulation 1975; 52: 979–86.
Brown GB, Bolson E, Frimer M, Dodge HT. Quantitative coronary arteriography: estimation of dimensions, hemodynamic resistance and artheroma mass of coronary artery lesions using the arteriogram and digital computation. Circulation 1977; 55: 329–37.
Tobis J, Nalcioglu O, Iseri L, Johnston WD, Roeck WD, Castleman E, Bauer B, Montelli S, Henry WL. Detection and quantitation of coronary artery stenoses from digital subtraction angiograms compared with 35-millimeter film cineangiograms. Am J Cardiol 1984; 54: 489–96.
Vas R, Eigler N, Miyazonio C, Pfaff JM, Resser KJ, Weiss M, Nivatpumin T, Whiting J, Forrester J. Digital quantification eliminates intra-observer and inter-observer variability in the evaluation of coronary artery stenosis. Am J Cardiol 1985; 56: 718–23.
Nichols AB, Gabrieli CFO, Fenoglio JJ, Esser PD. Quantification of relative coronary arterial stenosis by cinevideo-densitometric analysis of coronary arteriograms. Circulation 1984; 69: 512–22.
Spears JR, Sandor T, Als AV, Malagold M, Markis JE, Grossman W, Serur JR, Paulin S. Computerized image analysis for quantitative measurement of vessel diameter from cineangiograms. Circulation 1983; 68: 453–61.
Kruger RA, Mistretta CA, Houk TL, Riederer SJ, Shaw CG, Goodsitt MM, Crummy AB, Zwiebel W, Lancaster JC, Rowe GG, Flemming D. Computerized fluoroscopy in real time for noninvasive visualization of the cardiovascular system. Radiology 1979; 130: 49–57.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kavanaugh, K.M., Pinto, I.M.F., McGillem, M.J. et al. Effects of video frame averaging, smoothing and edge enhancement on the accuracy and precision of quantitative coronary arteriography. Int J Cardiac Imag 5, 233–239 (1990). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01797840
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01797840