Inter-observer differences in interpretation of coronary pressure-wire pullback data by non-expert interventional cardiologists

The physiological pattern of coronary artery disease as determined by pressure-wire (PW)-pullback is important for decision-making of revascularization and risk stratification of patients. However, it remains unclear whether inter-observer differences in interpreting PW-pullback data are subject to...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Cardiovascular intervention and therapeutics 2021-07, Vol.36 (3), p.289-297
Hauptverfasser: Warisawa, Takayuki, Howard, James P., Cook, Christopher M., Ahmad, Yousif, Doi, Shunichi, Nakayama, Masafumi, Goto, Sonoka, Yakuta, Yohei, Karube, Kenichi, Seike, Fumiyasu, Uetani, Teruyoshi, Murai, Tadashi, Kikuta, Yuetsu, Shiono, Yasutsugu, Kawase, Yoshiaki, Shun-Shin, Matthew J., Kaihara, Toshiki, Higuma, Takumi, Ishibashi, Yuki, Matsuda, Hisao, Nishina, Hidetaka, Matsuo, Hitoshi, Escaned, Javier, Akashi, Yoshihiro J., Davies, Justin E.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:The physiological pattern of coronary artery disease as determined by pressure-wire (PW)-pullback is important for decision-making of revascularization and risk stratification of patients. However, it remains unclear whether inter-observer differences in interpreting PW-pullback data are subject to the expertise of physicians. This study sought to investigate the subjectivity of this assessment among non-experts. Expert interventional cardiologists classified 545 PW-pullback traces into physiologically focal or physiologically diffuse disease pattern. Defining expert-consensus as the reference standard, we evaluated ten non-expert doctors’ classification performance. Observers were stratified equally by two ways: (i) years of experience as interventional cardiologists (middle-level vs. junior-level) and (ii) volume of institutions where they belonged to (high-volume center vs. low-volume center). When judged against the expert-consensus, the agreement of non-expert observers in assessing physiological pattern of disease (focal or diffuse) ranged from 69.1 to 85.0% ( p for heterogeneity 
ISSN:1868-4300
1868-4297
DOI:10.1007/s12928-020-00673-3