Ratings of microangioscope image quality and interventional utility
| Ratings | MD 1 | MD 2 | MD 3 | Mean |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Image-quality ratinga | ||||
| Video clip | ||||
| Diagnostic, cadaver carotid | 3 | 4 | 5 | 4.0 |
| Diagnostic, clot identification | 2 | 3 | 4 | 3.0 |
| Diagnostic, vessel wall injury | 2 | 4 | 4 | 3.3 |
| Diagnostic, PED follow-up | 4 | 5 | 5 | 4.7 |
| Diagnostic, PED initial | 3 | 5 | 5 | 4.3 |
| Interventional, aspiration | 2 | 4 | 3 | 3.0 |
| Interventional, stent retriever | 3 | 4 | 3 | 3.3 |
| Interventional, coil embolization | 3 | 5 | 5 | 4.3 |
| Interventional, WEB deployment | 2 | 5 | 3 | 3.3 |
| Utility ratinga | ||||
| Interventional application | ||||
| Aspiration | 2 | 4 | 3 | 3.0 |
| Stent retriever | 3 | 4 | 3 | 3.3 |
| Coil embolization | 4 | 5 | 5 | 4.7 |
| WEB deployment | 4 | 5 | 5 | 4.7 |
Note:—MD indicates independent neurointerventionalist evaluator.
↵a One worst; 5 best. Image quality rating scale described first, followed by device interventional utility rating scale:
1) Poor, no diagnostic value; not useful at all for intervention.
2) Limited diagnostic value; minimally useful, just of research value/interest.
3) Average quality, of possible clinical utility; moderately useful, adds to procedure quality/safety.
4) Good quality, minimal restrictions on visibility, probably adds benefit beyond angiography; significantly useful, should strongly consider for this indication.
5) Excellent quality, adds benefit beyond angiography, could definitely use as an adjunct; extremely useful, would definitely use in most/all such procedures.