Interobserver Variability of Coronary Stenosis Characterized by Coronary Angiography: A Single-Center (Toronto General Hospital) Retrospective Chart Review by Staff Cardiologists.

IF 2.6 Q2 PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE
Vascular Health and Risk Management Pub Date : 2024-08-13 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.2147/VHRM.S431612
Seyedmohammadshahab Shivaie, Hadi Tohidi, Pragash Loganathan, Manish Kar, Habiba Hashemy, Mohammad A Shafiee
{"title":"Interobserver Variability of Coronary Stenosis Characterized by Coronary Angiography: A Single-Center (Toronto General Hospital) Retrospective Chart Review by Staff Cardiologists.","authors":"Seyedmohammadshahab Shivaie, Hadi Tohidi, Pragash Loganathan, Manish Kar, Habiba Hashemy, Mohammad A Shafiee","doi":"10.2147/VHRM.S431612","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The reliability of interpretation of coronary angiography as a diagnostic tool was investigated. Furthermore, the impact of interobserver variability of coronary lesions on clinical decision-making was assessed. One of our motivations to do this research was the research gaps and our aim to have up-to-date information regarding interobserver variability among different cardiologists.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Our objective was to quantify interobserver variability among cardiologists who have seen angiograms independently. Disagreement among cardiologists in the visual assessment of invasive coronary angiography of coronary artery stenosis is not uncommon in previous studies. Three cardiologists with extensive experience in coronary angiography, including the primary cardiologist of each patient, read the angiograms of 200 patients from Toronto General Hospital independently.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Our research showed the mean agreement among all participating observers was 77.4%; therefore, the interobserver variability of coronary angiography interpretation was 22.6%.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Coronary angiography is still the gold-standard technique for guidance regarding coronary lesions. Sometimes, coronary angiography results in underestimation or overestimation of a lesion's functional severity. Interobserver variability should also be considered when interpreting the severity of coronary stenoses via invasive coronary angiography. This research shows that interobserver variability regarding coronary angiograms is still present (22.6%).</p>","PeriodicalId":23597,"journal":{"name":"Vascular Health and Risk Management","volume":"20 ","pages":"359-368"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11327917/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Vascular Health and Risk Management","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/VHRM.S431612","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: The reliability of interpretation of coronary angiography as a diagnostic tool was investigated. Furthermore, the impact of interobserver variability of coronary lesions on clinical decision-making was assessed. One of our motivations to do this research was the research gaps and our aim to have up-to-date information regarding interobserver variability among different cardiologists.

Methods: Our objective was to quantify interobserver variability among cardiologists who have seen angiograms independently. Disagreement among cardiologists in the visual assessment of invasive coronary angiography of coronary artery stenosis is not uncommon in previous studies. Three cardiologists with extensive experience in coronary angiography, including the primary cardiologist of each patient, read the angiograms of 200 patients from Toronto General Hospital independently.

Results: Our research showed the mean agreement among all participating observers was 77.4%; therefore, the interobserver variability of coronary angiography interpretation was 22.6%.

Discussion: Coronary angiography is still the gold-standard technique for guidance regarding coronary lesions. Sometimes, coronary angiography results in underestimation or overestimation of a lesion's functional severity. Interobserver variability should also be considered when interpreting the severity of coronary stenoses via invasive coronary angiography. This research shows that interobserver variability regarding coronary angiograms is still present (22.6%).

通过冠状动脉造影确定的冠状动脉狭窄的观察者间变异性:单中心(多伦多总医院)心脏病专家回顾性病历分析。
导言研究人员对作为诊断工具的冠状动脉造影术的解读可靠性进行了调查。此外,还评估了冠状动脉病变的观察者间差异对临床决策的影响。我们进行这项研究的动机之一是研究空白,目的是获得有关不同心脏病专家之间观察者间变异性的最新信息:我们的目标是量化独立观察血管造影的心脏病专家之间的观察者间变异性。在以往的研究中,心脏病专家在对冠状动脉狭窄的有创冠状动脉造影进行视觉评估时出现分歧的情况并不少见。三位具有丰富冠状动脉造影经验的心脏病专家(包括每位患者的主治心脏病专家)独立阅读了多伦多总医院 200 名患者的血管造影:我们的研究表明,所有参与研究的观察者之间的平均一致率为 77.4%;因此,冠状动脉造影术解释的观察者间变异率为 22.6%:讨论:冠状动脉造影仍是指导冠状动脉病变的金标准技术。讨论:冠状动脉造影仍是指导冠状动脉病变的金标准技术,但有时冠状动脉造影会导致低估或高估病变的功能严重性。在通过有创冠状动脉造影解释冠状动脉狭窄的严重程度时,还应考虑观察者之间的差异性。这项研究表明,冠状动脉造影的观察者间变异性仍然存在(22.6%)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Vascular Health and Risk Management
Vascular Health and Risk Management PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE-
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
3.40%
发文量
109
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: An international, peer-reviewed journal of therapeutics and risk management, focusing on concise rapid reporting of clinical studies on the processes involved in the maintenance of vascular health; the monitoring, prevention, and treatment of vascular disease and its sequelae; and the involvement of metabolic disorders, particularly diabetes. In addition, the journal will also seek to define drug usage in terms of ultimate uptake and acceptance by the patient and healthcare professional.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信