Key result
Observer variability in interpreting coronary angiograms remains noteworthy regardless of the specific degree of angiographic lesion chosen as a standard.
Highlights the significant interobserver variability in the interpretation of coronary angiograms.
The letter by Vieras and Alter questions the choice of an angiographic lesion of 50% reduction in luminal diameter (equivalent to 75% reduction of the cross-sectional area pathologically) of the coronary artery. This has been a commonly accepted standard for several studies.¹,²Other studies have used a more stenotic lesion.³We agree that further evaluation of the functional importance of an obstructive lesion is necessary, including degree of reduction, geometric shape, length, and multiplicity. There have been several reports in the literature directed at this problem.⁴⁻⁶However, the major point in the article was to emphasize the observer variability of interpreting angiograms. It is almost certain, regardless of the degree of angiographic lesion chosen, that there would be a noteworthy interobserver variability.⁷
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Marvin L. Murphy (1979) conducted a letter in Coronary artery disease. Coronary angiogram interpretation was evaluated on Observer variability. Observer variability in interpreting coronary angiograms remains noteworthy regardless of the specific degree of angiographic lesion chosen as a standard.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: