Interobserver Variability in the Interpretation of Pulmonary Artery Catheter Pressure Tracings

We evaluated the ability of three independent reviewers (R1, R2, R3) using waveform analysis to accurately identify confirmed valid PCWP tracings, and their ability to consistently report the PCWP numerical value. Sixty PA and PCWP tracings were prospectively obtained and blindly reviewed by three i...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Chest 1991-12, Vol.100 (6), p.1647-1654
Hauptverfasser: Komadina, Kevin H., Schenk, David A., LaVeau, Raul, Duncan, Charles A., Chambers, Steven L.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 1654
container_issue 6
container_start_page 1647
container_title Chest
container_volume 100
creator Komadina, Kevin H.
Schenk, David A.
LaVeau, Raul
Duncan, Charles A.
Chambers, Steven L.
description We evaluated the ability of three independent reviewers (R1, R2, R3) using waveform analysis to accurately identify confirmed valid PCWP tracings, and their ability to consistently report the PCWP numerical value. Sixty PA and PCWP tracings were prospectively obtained and blindly reviewed by three independent critical care physicians. The medical ICU of Wilford Hall USAF Medical Center. Twenty mechanically ventilated patients with PA catheters inserted for hemodynamic assessment. Sixty PA and PCWP tracings were reviewed blindly and independently for acceptability using waveform criteria by three critical care physicians. While recording all 60 tracings, blood was aspirated from the distal port of the PA catheter with the balloon “wedged” and blood gas analysis was done. Each reviewer analyzed the PCWP tracings for validity using waveform criteria, and reported a numerical PCWP reading for those tracings judged valid by waveform criteria. Reviewer sensitivity, specificity and accuracy in performing waveform analysis were assessed by comparing their predictions with those tracings that were confirmed valid by the aspiration of pulmonary capillary blood. Inter-reviewer agreement upon which validity of PCWP tracings was based and reviewer agreement on the numerical PCWP reading were also assessed. All tracings were blindly reviewed by each physician, first without and then with an AP tracing to define end-expiration. Thirty-eight of 60 PCWP tracings were confirmed valid by the aspiration of pulmonary capillary blood. In the remaining 22 tracings, mixed venous blood was aspirated with the balloon wedged, and tracing validity was unconfirmed. Reviewer accuracy in identifying confirmed valid PCWP tracings, using waveform analysis, was 50 percent for R1, 65 percent for R2 and 57 percent for R3. No reviewer's accuracy was significantly different from a random guess which would yield an accuracy of 50 percent. Agreement by all three reviewers in identifying valid PCWP tracings using waveform analysis varied from 37 percent in the absence of an AP tracing to 66 percent when an AP tracing was available to identify end-expiration (p
doi_str_mv 10.1378/chest.100.6.1647
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_72495051</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0012369216528074</els_id><sourcerecordid>72495051</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c415t-83182c10abe67bded03d821fe74583b1a997886562381bab20a7387545c013003</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kEFv1DAQhS0EKtvCnQuSD4hbFk8cJzG3agVtpUr0UDhiOc6k6yqJl3FStP--7mZV1AMne_S-N89-jH0AsQZZ1V_cFuO0BiHW5RrKonrFVqAlZFIV8jVbCQF5Jkudv2WnMd6LNIMuT9gJaKULoVfs99U4IYUmIj0g8V-WvG1876c99yOftsgPwI5wspMPIw8dv5n7IYyW9vyckrbnG5vAdOM3hDHOhPyWrPPjXXzH3nS2j_j-eJ6xn9-_3W4us-sfF1eb8-vMFaCmrJZQ5w6EbbCsmhZbIds6hw6rQtWyAat1VdelKnNZQ2ObXNhK1pUqlBMghZBn7POyd0fhz5w6MYOPDvvejhjmaKq80EooSKBYQEchRsLO7MgP6S8GhHmq1BwqTZMwpXmqNFk-HnfPzYDtP8PSYdI_HXUbne07sqPz8RlTUKnygB2Tt_5u-9cTmjjYvk9L5ZJ5H2Yabf8i-etiwVTdg0cy0XkcHbbJ7ibTBv__Zz8CrfKlBA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>72495051</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Interobserver Variability in the Interpretation of Pulmonary Artery Catheter Pressure Tracings</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Komadina, Kevin H. ; Schenk, David A. ; LaVeau, Raul ; Duncan, Charles A. ; Chambers, Steven L.</creator><creatorcontrib>Komadina, Kevin H. ; Schenk, David A. ; LaVeau, Raul ; Duncan, Charles A. ; Chambers, Steven L.</creatorcontrib><description>We evaluated the ability of three independent reviewers (R1, R2, R3) using waveform analysis to accurately identify confirmed valid PCWP tracings, and their ability to consistently report the PCWP numerical value. Sixty PA and PCWP tracings were prospectively obtained and blindly reviewed by three independent critical care physicians. The medical ICU of Wilford Hall USAF Medical Center. Twenty mechanically ventilated patients with PA catheters inserted for hemodynamic assessment. Sixty PA and PCWP tracings were reviewed blindly and independently for acceptability using waveform criteria by three critical care physicians. While recording all 60 tracings, blood was aspirated from the distal port of the PA catheter with the balloon “wedged” and blood gas analysis was done. Each reviewer analyzed the PCWP tracings for validity using waveform criteria, and reported a numerical PCWP reading for those tracings judged valid by waveform criteria. Reviewer sensitivity, specificity and accuracy in performing waveform analysis were assessed by comparing their predictions with those tracings that were confirmed valid by the aspiration of pulmonary capillary blood. Inter-reviewer agreement upon which validity of PCWP tracings was based and reviewer agreement on the numerical PCWP reading were also assessed. All tracings were blindly reviewed by each physician, first without and then with an AP tracing to define end-expiration. Thirty-eight of 60 PCWP tracings were confirmed valid by the aspiration of pulmonary capillary blood. In the remaining 22 tracings, mixed venous blood was aspirated with the balloon wedged, and tracing validity was unconfirmed. Reviewer accuracy in identifying confirmed valid PCWP tracings, using waveform analysis, was 50 percent for R1, 65 percent for R2 and 57 percent for R3. No reviewer's accuracy was significantly different from a random guess which would yield an accuracy of 50 percent. Agreement by all three reviewers in identifying valid PCWP tracings using waveform analysis varied from 37 percent in the absence of an AP tracing to 66 percent when an AP tracing was available to identify end-expiration (p&lt;0.003). Agreement by all three reviewers on the PCWP numerical reading (within 4 mm Hg) was 79 percent without an AP tracing and 96 percent with an AP tracing (p = NS). The numerical reading reported by the ICU nurses and house staff correlated closely with the reviewers' readings. Agreement with the reported PCWP reading was improved only for R2 by the addition of an AP tracing. We conclude that the validation of PCWP tracings by waveform analysis is subject to interobserver variability, and reviewer accuracy in identifying confirmed valid tracings was no better than a random guess. Agreement on the numerical PCWP reading was high among the reviewers as was agreement by each individual reviewer with the reported PCWP. Finally, the presence of an AP tracing, to define end-expiration, adds little to the interpretation of the PCWP numerical reading by experienced physicians.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0012-3692</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1931-3543</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1378/chest.100.6.1647</identifier><identifier>PMID: 1959409</identifier><identifier>CODEN: CHETBF</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Northbrook, IL: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Adult ; Aged ; Biological and medical sciences ; Cardiovascular system ; Catheterization, Swan-Ganz ; Female ; Humans ; Intensive Care Units ; Investigative techniques of hemodynamics ; Investigative techniques, diagnostic techniques (general aspects) ; Male ; Medical sciences ; Middle Aged ; Observer Variation ; Pulmonary Artery ; Pulmonary Wedge Pressure</subject><ispartof>Chest, 1991-12, Vol.100 (6), p.1647-1654</ispartof><rights>1991 The American College of Chest Physicians</rights><rights>1992 INIST-CNRS</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c415t-83182c10abe67bded03d821fe74583b1a997886562381bab20a7387545c013003</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c415t-83182c10abe67bded03d821fe74583b1a997886562381bab20a7387545c013003</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27903,27904</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&amp;idt=5175609$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1959409$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Komadina, Kevin H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schenk, David A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>LaVeau, Raul</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Duncan, Charles A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chambers, Steven L.</creatorcontrib><title>Interobserver Variability in the Interpretation of Pulmonary Artery Catheter Pressure Tracings</title><title>Chest</title><addtitle>Chest</addtitle><description>We evaluated the ability of three independent reviewers (R1, R2, R3) using waveform analysis to accurately identify confirmed valid PCWP tracings, and their ability to consistently report the PCWP numerical value. Sixty PA and PCWP tracings were prospectively obtained and blindly reviewed by three independent critical care physicians. The medical ICU of Wilford Hall USAF Medical Center. Twenty mechanically ventilated patients with PA catheters inserted for hemodynamic assessment. Sixty PA and PCWP tracings were reviewed blindly and independently for acceptability using waveform criteria by three critical care physicians. While recording all 60 tracings, blood was aspirated from the distal port of the PA catheter with the balloon “wedged” and blood gas analysis was done. Each reviewer analyzed the PCWP tracings for validity using waveform criteria, and reported a numerical PCWP reading for those tracings judged valid by waveform criteria. Reviewer sensitivity, specificity and accuracy in performing waveform analysis were assessed by comparing their predictions with those tracings that were confirmed valid by the aspiration of pulmonary capillary blood. Inter-reviewer agreement upon which validity of PCWP tracings was based and reviewer agreement on the numerical PCWP reading were also assessed. All tracings were blindly reviewed by each physician, first without and then with an AP tracing to define end-expiration. Thirty-eight of 60 PCWP tracings were confirmed valid by the aspiration of pulmonary capillary blood. In the remaining 22 tracings, mixed venous blood was aspirated with the balloon wedged, and tracing validity was unconfirmed. Reviewer accuracy in identifying confirmed valid PCWP tracings, using waveform analysis, was 50 percent for R1, 65 percent for R2 and 57 percent for R3. No reviewer's accuracy was significantly different from a random guess which would yield an accuracy of 50 percent. Agreement by all three reviewers in identifying valid PCWP tracings using waveform analysis varied from 37 percent in the absence of an AP tracing to 66 percent when an AP tracing was available to identify end-expiration (p&lt;0.003). Agreement by all three reviewers on the PCWP numerical reading (within 4 mm Hg) was 79 percent without an AP tracing and 96 percent with an AP tracing (p = NS). The numerical reading reported by the ICU nurses and house staff correlated closely with the reviewers' readings. Agreement with the reported PCWP reading was improved only for R2 by the addition of an AP tracing. We conclude that the validation of PCWP tracings by waveform analysis is subject to interobserver variability, and reviewer accuracy in identifying confirmed valid tracings was no better than a random guess. Agreement on the numerical PCWP reading was high among the reviewers as was agreement by each individual reviewer with the reported PCWP. Finally, the presence of an AP tracing, to define end-expiration, adds little to the interpretation of the PCWP numerical reading by experienced physicians.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Cardiovascular system</subject><subject>Catheterization, Swan-Ganz</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Intensive Care Units</subject><subject>Investigative techniques of hemodynamics</subject><subject>Investigative techniques, diagnostic techniques (general aspects)</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Observer Variation</subject><subject>Pulmonary Artery</subject><subject>Pulmonary Wedge Pressure</subject><issn>0012-3692</issn><issn>1931-3543</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1991</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kEFv1DAQhS0EKtvCnQuSD4hbFk8cJzG3agVtpUr0UDhiOc6k6yqJl3FStP--7mZV1AMne_S-N89-jH0AsQZZ1V_cFuO0BiHW5RrKonrFVqAlZFIV8jVbCQF5Jkudv2WnMd6LNIMuT9gJaKULoVfs99U4IYUmIj0g8V-WvG1876c99yOftsgPwI5wspMPIw8dv5n7IYyW9vyckrbnG5vAdOM3hDHOhPyWrPPjXXzH3nS2j_j-eJ6xn9-_3W4us-sfF1eb8-vMFaCmrJZQ5w6EbbCsmhZbIds6hw6rQtWyAat1VdelKnNZQ2ObXNhK1pUqlBMghZBn7POyd0fhz5w6MYOPDvvejhjmaKq80EooSKBYQEchRsLO7MgP6S8GhHmq1BwqTZMwpXmqNFk-HnfPzYDtP8PSYdI_HXUbne07sqPz8RlTUKnygB2Tt_5u-9cTmjjYvk9L5ZJ5H2Yabf8i-etiwVTdg0cy0XkcHbbJ7ibTBv__Zz8CrfKlBA</recordid><startdate>19911201</startdate><enddate>19911201</enddate><creator>Komadina, Kevin H.</creator><creator>Schenk, David A.</creator><creator>LaVeau, Raul</creator><creator>Duncan, Charles A.</creator><creator>Chambers, Steven L.</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><general>American College of Chest Physicians</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>19911201</creationdate><title>Interobserver Variability in the Interpretation of Pulmonary Artery Catheter Pressure Tracings</title><author>Komadina, Kevin H. ; Schenk, David A. ; LaVeau, Raul ; Duncan, Charles A. ; Chambers, Steven L.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c415t-83182c10abe67bded03d821fe74583b1a997886562381bab20a7387545c013003</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1991</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Cardiovascular system</topic><topic>Catheterization, Swan-Ganz</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Intensive Care Units</topic><topic>Investigative techniques of hemodynamics</topic><topic>Investigative techniques, diagnostic techniques (general aspects)</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Observer Variation</topic><topic>Pulmonary Artery</topic><topic>Pulmonary Wedge Pressure</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Komadina, Kevin H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schenk, David A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>LaVeau, Raul</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Duncan, Charles A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chambers, Steven L.</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Chest</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Komadina, Kevin H.</au><au>Schenk, David A.</au><au>LaVeau, Raul</au><au>Duncan, Charles A.</au><au>Chambers, Steven L.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Interobserver Variability in the Interpretation of Pulmonary Artery Catheter Pressure Tracings</atitle><jtitle>Chest</jtitle><addtitle>Chest</addtitle><date>1991-12-01</date><risdate>1991</risdate><volume>100</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>1647</spage><epage>1654</epage><pages>1647-1654</pages><issn>0012-3692</issn><eissn>1931-3543</eissn><coden>CHETBF</coden><abstract>We evaluated the ability of three independent reviewers (R1, R2, R3) using waveform analysis to accurately identify confirmed valid PCWP tracings, and their ability to consistently report the PCWP numerical value. Sixty PA and PCWP tracings were prospectively obtained and blindly reviewed by three independent critical care physicians. The medical ICU of Wilford Hall USAF Medical Center. Twenty mechanically ventilated patients with PA catheters inserted for hemodynamic assessment. Sixty PA and PCWP tracings were reviewed blindly and independently for acceptability using waveform criteria by three critical care physicians. While recording all 60 tracings, blood was aspirated from the distal port of the PA catheter with the balloon “wedged” and blood gas analysis was done. Each reviewer analyzed the PCWP tracings for validity using waveform criteria, and reported a numerical PCWP reading for those tracings judged valid by waveform criteria. Reviewer sensitivity, specificity and accuracy in performing waveform analysis were assessed by comparing their predictions with those tracings that were confirmed valid by the aspiration of pulmonary capillary blood. Inter-reviewer agreement upon which validity of PCWP tracings was based and reviewer agreement on the numerical PCWP reading were also assessed. All tracings were blindly reviewed by each physician, first without and then with an AP tracing to define end-expiration. Thirty-eight of 60 PCWP tracings were confirmed valid by the aspiration of pulmonary capillary blood. In the remaining 22 tracings, mixed venous blood was aspirated with the balloon wedged, and tracing validity was unconfirmed. Reviewer accuracy in identifying confirmed valid PCWP tracings, using waveform analysis, was 50 percent for R1, 65 percent for R2 and 57 percent for R3. No reviewer's accuracy was significantly different from a random guess which would yield an accuracy of 50 percent. Agreement by all three reviewers in identifying valid PCWP tracings using waveform analysis varied from 37 percent in the absence of an AP tracing to 66 percent when an AP tracing was available to identify end-expiration (p&lt;0.003). Agreement by all three reviewers on the PCWP numerical reading (within 4 mm Hg) was 79 percent without an AP tracing and 96 percent with an AP tracing (p = NS). The numerical reading reported by the ICU nurses and house staff correlated closely with the reviewers' readings. Agreement with the reported PCWP reading was improved only for R2 by the addition of an AP tracing. We conclude that the validation of PCWP tracings by waveform analysis is subject to interobserver variability, and reviewer accuracy in identifying confirmed valid tracings was no better than a random guess. Agreement on the numerical PCWP reading was high among the reviewers as was agreement by each individual reviewer with the reported PCWP. Finally, the presence of an AP tracing, to define end-expiration, adds little to the interpretation of the PCWP numerical reading by experienced physicians.</abstract><cop>Northbrook, IL</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>1959409</pmid><doi>10.1378/chest.100.6.1647</doi><tpages>8</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0012-3692
ispartof Chest, 1991-12, Vol.100 (6), p.1647-1654
issn 0012-3692
1931-3543
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_72495051
source MEDLINE; Alma/SFX Local Collection
subjects Adult
Aged
Biological and medical sciences
Cardiovascular system
Catheterization, Swan-Ganz
Female
Humans
Intensive Care Units
Investigative techniques of hemodynamics
Investigative techniques, diagnostic techniques (general aspects)
Male
Medical sciences
Middle Aged
Observer Variation
Pulmonary Artery
Pulmonary Wedge Pressure
title Interobserver Variability in the Interpretation of Pulmonary Artery Catheter Pressure Tracings
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-27T01%3A32%3A15IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Interobserver%20Variability%20in%20the%20Interpretation%20of%20Pulmonary%20Artery%20Catheter%20Pressure%20Tracings&rft.jtitle=Chest&rft.au=Komadina,%20Kevin%20H.&rft.date=1991-12-01&rft.volume=100&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=1647&rft.epage=1654&rft.pages=1647-1654&rft.issn=0012-3692&rft.eissn=1931-3543&rft.coden=CHETBF&rft_id=info:doi/10.1378/chest.100.6.1647&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E72495051%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=72495051&rft_id=info:pmid/1959409&rft_els_id=S0012369216528074&rfr_iscdi=true