Observer variabilities for the diagnosis of coronary artery disease using anatomical and functional testing: the impact of certification.

IF 3.8 2区 医学 Q1 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS
Grigorios Korosoglou, Nadine Abanador-Kamper, Christian Tesche, Matthias Renker, Florian André, Loris Weichsel, Michaela Hell, Florian Bönner, Mareike Cramer, Sebastian Kelle, Jeanette Schulz-Menger, Wolfgang Fehske, Andreas Rolf, Norbert Frey, Holger Thiele, Stephan Baldus
{"title":"Observer variabilities for the diagnosis of coronary artery disease using anatomical and functional testing: the impact of certification.","authors":"Grigorios Korosoglou, Nadine Abanador-Kamper, Christian Tesche, Matthias Renker, Florian André, Loris Weichsel, Michaela Hell, Florian Bönner, Mareike Cramer, Sebastian Kelle, Jeanette Schulz-Menger, Wolfgang Fehske, Andreas Rolf, Norbert Frey, Holger Thiele, Stephan Baldus","doi":"10.1007/s00392-025-02661-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>To compare the reproducibility in reporting of coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) or cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) by certified readers for CCTA and CMR by the German Society of Cardiology (DGK) versus that by non-certified readers.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The study included 40 randomly selected CCTA and vasodilator stress CMR patient datasets. For CCTA, the degree of lumen narrowing, plaque composition, and high-risk plaque features were assessed. For CMR, wall motion and perfusion abnormalities and late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) were rated. All measures were conducted by segments and for individual patients. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were calculated to assess agreement between non-certified (n = 4) vs. DGK-certified readers (n = 4).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>ICC for assessment of luminal narrowing, plaque composition, and high-risk features were, respectively, 0.65 (95% confidence intervals [CI] 0.59-0.69), 0.64 (95%CI 0.45-0.80), and 0.45 (95%CI 0.22-0.66) for non-certified versus 0.78 (95%CI 0.74-0.81), 0.88 (95%CI 0.79-0.93), and 0.89 (95%CI 0.81-0.95) for DGK-certified readers (p < 0.001 for all). ICC for the assessment of wall motion, perfusion, and LGE were, respectively, 0.41 (95%CI 0.35-0.48), 0.27 (95%CI 0.18-0.38), and 0.48 (95%CI 0.41-0.54) for non-certified versus 0.71 (95%CI 0.67-0.75), 0.71 (95%CI 0.67-0.75) and 0.67 (95%CI 0.62-0.71) for DGK-certified readers (p < 0.001 for all). The agreement was excellent among DGK-certified readers for obstructive CAD (≥ 70% lumen narrowing) assessed by CCTA and high for abnormal perfusion and for LGE by CMR in a per-patient analysis (0.88; 95%CI 0.79-0.94 and 0.84; 95%CI 0.71-0.92), respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Substantially better CCTA and CMR reporting was observed for DGK-certified cardiologists, who achieved high agreement for diagnosing the presence or absence of obstructive CAD by CCTA and abnormal perfusion by CMR. Since important clinical decisions may be based on these readings, our data support quality-controlled education programs for advanced cardiac imaging.</p>","PeriodicalId":10474,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Research in Cardiology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Research in Cardiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00392-025-02661-0","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aim: To compare the reproducibility in reporting of coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) or cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) by certified readers for CCTA and CMR by the German Society of Cardiology (DGK) versus that by non-certified readers.

Methods: The study included 40 randomly selected CCTA and vasodilator stress CMR patient datasets. For CCTA, the degree of lumen narrowing, plaque composition, and high-risk plaque features were assessed. For CMR, wall motion and perfusion abnormalities and late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) were rated. All measures were conducted by segments and for individual patients. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were calculated to assess agreement between non-certified (n = 4) vs. DGK-certified readers (n = 4).

Results: ICC for assessment of luminal narrowing, plaque composition, and high-risk features were, respectively, 0.65 (95% confidence intervals [CI] 0.59-0.69), 0.64 (95%CI 0.45-0.80), and 0.45 (95%CI 0.22-0.66) for non-certified versus 0.78 (95%CI 0.74-0.81), 0.88 (95%CI 0.79-0.93), and 0.89 (95%CI 0.81-0.95) for DGK-certified readers (p < 0.001 for all). ICC for the assessment of wall motion, perfusion, and LGE were, respectively, 0.41 (95%CI 0.35-0.48), 0.27 (95%CI 0.18-0.38), and 0.48 (95%CI 0.41-0.54) for non-certified versus 0.71 (95%CI 0.67-0.75), 0.71 (95%CI 0.67-0.75) and 0.67 (95%CI 0.62-0.71) for DGK-certified readers (p < 0.001 for all). The agreement was excellent among DGK-certified readers for obstructive CAD (≥ 70% lumen narrowing) assessed by CCTA and high for abnormal perfusion and for LGE by CMR in a per-patient analysis (0.88; 95%CI 0.79-0.94 and 0.84; 95%CI 0.71-0.92), respectively.

Conclusion: Substantially better CCTA and CMR reporting was observed for DGK-certified cardiologists, who achieved high agreement for diagnosing the presence or absence of obstructive CAD by CCTA and abnormal perfusion by CMR. Since important clinical decisions may be based on these readings, our data support quality-controlled education programs for advanced cardiac imaging.

使用解剖和功能测试诊断冠状动脉疾病的观察变量:认证的影响。
目的:比较德国心脏病学会(DGK) CCTA和CMR认证阅读器与非认证阅读器报告冠状动脉计算机断层扫描血管造影(CCTA)或心血管磁共振成像(CMR)的可重复性。方法:随机选取40例CCTA和血管扩张剂应激CMR患者资料。对于CCTA,评估管腔狭窄程度、斑块组成和高危斑块特征。CMR对壁运动和灌注异常及晚期钆增强(LGE)进行评分。所有措施均按节段和个别患者进行。计算类内相关系数(ICC)以评估未认证(n = 4)与dgk认证的读者(n = 4)之间的一致性。结果:未认证读者评估管腔狭窄、斑块组成和高危特征的ICC分别为0.65(95%可信区间[CI] 0.59-0.69)、0.64 (95%CI 0.45-0.80)和0.45 (95%CI 0.22-0.66),而dgk认证读者的ICC为0.78 (95%CI 0.74-0.81)、0.88 (95%CI 0.79-0.93)和0.89 (95%CI 0.81-0.95) (p结论:dgk认证的心脏科医生的CCTA和CMR报告效果明显更好,他们在CCTA诊断阻塞性CAD存在与否和CMR诊断灌注异常方面取得了很高的一致性。由于重要的临床决策可能基于这些读数,我们的数据支持高级心脏成像的质量控制教育计划。
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
Clinical Research in Cardiology
Clinical Research in Cardiology 医学-心血管系统
CiteScore
11.40
自引率
4.00%
发文量
140
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Clinical Research in Cardiology is an international journal for clinical cardiovascular research. It provides a forum for original and review articles as well as critical perspective articles. Articles are only accepted if they meet stringent scientific standards and have undergone peer review. The journal regularly receives articles from the field of clinical cardiology, angiology, as well as heart and vascular surgery. As the official journal of the German Cardiac Society, it gives a current and competent survey on the diagnosis and therapy of heart and vascular diseases.
×
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