Key result
Resident-performed handheld VMT scoring shows almost-perfect agreement with experienced sonographers using stationary ultrasound.
Why the study?
This study aimed to evaluate the interobserver reproducibility of visual mitral-tricuspid valve opening (VMT) scoring between a resident using handheld ultrasound and experienced sonographers using a stationary system.
Does VMT scoring by a resident using a handheld ultrasound device show good interobserver agreement with experienced sonographers using a stationary system for estimating left ventricular filling pressure in inpatients?
Observational (n=27)
Blinded assessors
No
Does VMT scoring by a resident using a handheld ultrasound device show good interobserver agreement with experienced sonographers using a stationary system for estimating left ventricular filling pressure in inpatients?
VMT scoring is a highly reproducible method for estimating left ventricular filling pressure, even when performed by a resident using a handheld device compared to expert sonographers.
Supports VMT scoring by trainees with handheld devices; leaves open prospective validation against invasive LVFP and outcomes.
Background The visually assessed time difference between mitral and tricuspid valve opening (VMT) scoring is a simple B-mode echocardiographic method for estimating left ventricular filling pressure (LVFP). This study aimed to evaluate the interobserver reproducibility of VMT scoring between a resident doctor using a handheld ultrasound device and experienced sonographers using a stationary system. Methodology In this prospective observational study, 27 inpatients underwent two echocardiographic examinations on the same day: a handheld ultrasound performed by a resident doctor and standard echocardiography performed by cardiac sonographers. Both observers independently assessed VMT scores (0-3) based on the time sequence of atrioventricular valve opening and inferior vena cava findings. Interobserver agreement was evaluated using weighted kappa statistics. Results Among the 27 patients (mean age = 76 ± 12 years; 56% female), 11 (41%) had a VMT score ≥2, indicating elevated LVFP. The weighted kappa value for interobserver agreement was 0.97, demonstrating almost-perfect concordance regardless of operator experience or device type. Conclusions VMT scoring appears to be a practical and reliable method for LVFP evaluation in diverse clinical settings, particularly those with limited access to expert echocardiography.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Uruma et al. (2026) conducted an observational in Inpatients requiring echocardiography (n=27). VMT scoring by resident using handheld ultrasound vs. VMT scoring by experienced sonographers using stationary ultrasound was evaluated on Interobserver agreement for VMT score grading (Weighted kappa 0.97). VMT scoring demonstrated almost-perfect interobserver agreement (weighted kappa 0.97) between a resident using a handheld ultrasound and experienced sonographers using a stationary system.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: