Key result
Expert visual assessment of RV function strongly agrees with quantitative FAC while novice agreement lags.
Why the study?
Right ventricular dysfunction frequently contributes to circulatory failure in critical care, but the reliability of commonly used visual assessment remains debated.
Does visual assessment of right ventricular function reliably correlate with quantitative echocardiographic parameters in critically ill patients?
Observational (n=115)
Blinded to raters
Yes
Does visual assessment of right ventricular function reliably correlate with quantitative echocardiographic parameters in critically ill patients?
Visual assessment of right ventricular function by experienced raters shows strong concordance with quantitative fractional area of change (FAC), supporting its use in multiparametric ICU evaluations.
Visual RV grading shows limited concordance with quantitative measures in critical care; leaves open need for validated protocols.
Objectives: Right ventricular (RV) dysfunction frequently contributes to circulatory failure in critical care, making its diagnosis essential. Although visual assessment is commonly used, its reliability remains debated. This study evaluated the concordance between visual grading of RV systolic function, size, and interventricular septal motion and standard quantitative echocardiographic parameters. Design: This was a multicenter international prospective study. Setting: Raters with different levels of echocardiography expertise reviewed transthoracic echocardiography recordings from 115 critically ill patients. Patients: The raters visually assessed RV systolic function (normal, moderate, or severe dysfunction), RV size (dilated/nondilated), and septal motion (paradoxical/nonparadoxical). Quantitative parameters, blinded to raters, included fractional area of change (FAC), tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion (TAPSE), S’ wave, and RV-free wall longitudinal strain (RVFWLS), according the most recent (2025) guideline-recommended thresholds for abnormality and severity. Interventions: None. Measurements and Main Results: Seventy-three raters from five countries participated. Agreement between visual grading and FAC was strong for experts (κ = 0.73) and intermediates (κ = 0.64), but only moderate for novices (κ = 0.55). Overall visual assessment showed moderate agreement with RVFWLS (κ = 0.45), TAPSE (κ = 0.44), and S’ wave (κ = 0.43). Agreement for RV size was moderate using RV basal diameter (κ = 0.43) and RV/left ventricle (LV) area ratio (κ = 0.47), but low for the RV/LV basal diameter ratio (κ = 0.25). Concordance for septal motion was low (κ = 0.28). Conclusions: Visual assessment of RV function by experienced raters shows satisfactory concordance with guideline-based FAC, supporting its integration into a multiparametric evaluation and structured educational programs.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Levy et al. (2026) conducted an observational in Critical illness (n=115). Visual assessment of right ventricular function vs. Quantitative echocardiographic parameters was evaluated on Concordance between visual grading of right ventricular systolic function and fractional area of change (FAC) (κ = 0.73 (experts)). Visual assessment of right ventricular function by expert raters showed strong agreement with quantitative fractional area of change (κ = 0.73), but only moderate agreement for novices (κ = 0.55).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: