Stress echocardiography with smartphone: real-time remote reading for regional wall motion

The diffusion of smart-phones offers access to the best remote expertise in stress echo (SE). To evaluate the reliability of SE based on smart-phone filming and reading. A set of 20 SE video-clips were read in random sequence with a multiple choice six-answer test by ten readers from five different...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:The International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging 2017-11, Vol.33 (11), p.1731-1736
Hauptverfasser: Scali, Maria Chiara, de Azevedo Bellagamba, Clarissa Carmona, Ciampi, Quirino, Simova, Iana, de Castro e Silva Pretto, José Luis, Djordjevic-Dikic, Ana, Dodi, Claudio, Cortigiani, Lauro, Zagatina, Angela, Trambaiolo, Paolo, Torres, Marco R., Citro, Rodolfo, Colonna, Paolo, Paterni, Marco, Picano, Eugenio
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:The diffusion of smart-phones offers access to the best remote expertise in stress echo (SE). To evaluate the reliability of SE based on smart-phone filming and reading. A set of 20 SE video-clips were read in random sequence with a multiple choice six-answer test by ten readers from five different countries (Italy, Brazil, Serbia, Bulgaria, Russia) of the “SE2020” study network. The gold standard to assess accuracy was a core-lab expert reader in agreement with angiographic verification (0 = wrong, 1 = right). The same set of 20 SE studies were read, in random order and >2 months apart, on desktop Workstation and via smartphones by ten remote readers. Image quality was graded from 1 = poor but readable, to 3 = excellent. Kappa (k) statistics was used to assess intra- and inter-observer agreement. The image quality was comparable in desktop workstation vs. smartphone (2.0 ± 0.5 vs. 2.4 ± 0.7, p = NS). The average reading time per case was similar for desktop versus smartphone (90 ± 39 vs. 82 ± 54 s, p = NS). The overall diagnostic accuracy of the ten readers was similar for desktop workstation vs. smartphone (84 vs. 91%, p = NS). Intra-observer agreement (desktop vs. smartphone) was good (k = 0.81 ± 0.14). Inter-observer agreement was good and similar via desktop or smartphone (k = 0.69 vs. k = 0.72, p = NS). The diagnostic accuracy and consistency of SE reading among certified readers was high and similar via desktop workstation or via smartphone.
ISSN:1569-5794
1573-0743
1875-8312
DOI:10.1007/s10554-017-1167-2