Key result
Application of the 2016 ASE/EACVI guidelines for estimating left ventricular filling pressure demonstrated good interobserver agreement (Fleiss κ 0.76-0.94) and high diagnostic accuracy across observers of varying experience levels.
Why the study?
Previous studies showed wide limits of agreement using 2009 guidelines, but the reproducibility of the updated 2016 guidelines in estimating LV filling pressure remained unknown.
Does the application of the 2016 ASE/EACVI guidelines accurately and reproducibly estimate left ventricular filling pressure in patients undergoing cardiac catheterization?
Cross-Sectional (n=50)
Single-blind
Yes
Does the application of the 2016 ASE/EACVI guidelines accurately and reproducibly estimate left ventricular filling pressure in patients undergoing cardiac catheterization?
The 2016 ASE/EACVI guidelines for evaluating left ventricular filling pressure demonstrate good accuracy and interobserver agreement across different levels of echocardiography experience.
High interobserver agreement supports 2016 guideline use across experience levels; leaves open broader validation before changing practice.
BACKGROUND: Assessment of left ventricular (LV) filling pressure is among the important components of a comprehensive echocardiographic report. Previous studies noted wide limits of agreement using 2009 American Society of Echocardiography/European Association of Echocardiography guidelines, but reproducibility of 2016 guidelines update in estimating LV filling pressure is unknown. METHODS: Echocardiographic and hemodynamic data were obtained from 50 patients undergoing cardiac catheterization for clinical indications. Clinical and echocardiographic findings but not invasive hemodynamics were provided to 4 groups of observers, including experienced echocardiographers and cardiology fellows. Invasively acquired LV filling pressure was the gold standard. RESULTS: In group I of 8 experienced echocardiographers from the guidelines writing committee, sensitivity for elevated LV filling pressure was 92% for all observers, and specificity was 93±6%. Fleiss κ-value for the agreement in group I was 0.80. In group II of 4 fellows in training, sensitivity was 91±2%, and specificity was 95±2%. Fleiss κ-value for the agreement in group II was 0.94. In group III of 9 experienced echocardiographers who had not participated in drafting the guidelines, sensitivity was 88±5%, and specificity was 91±7%. Fleiss κ-value for the agreement in group III was 0.76. In group IV of 7 other fellows, sensitivity was 91±3%, and specificity was 92±5%. Fleiss κ-value for the agreement in group IV was 0.89. CONCLUSIONS: There is a good level of agreement and accuracy in the estimation of LV filling pressure using the American Society of Echocardiography/European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging 2016 recommendations update, irrespective of the experience level of the observer.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nagueh et al. (2019) conducted a cross-sectional in Elevated left ventricular filling pressure (n=50). 2016 ASE/EACVI guidelines for estimation of left ventricular filling pressure vs. Invasive left ventricular filling pressure (gold standard) was evaluated on Interobserver agreement (Fleiss κ) for elevated LV filling pressure among experienced echocardiographers from the guidelines writing committee (Group I) (Fleiss κ 0.80, 95% CI 0.73-0.88). Application of the 2016 ASE/EACVI guidelines for estimating left ventricular filling pressure demonstrated good interobserver agreement (Fleiss κ 0.76-0.94) and high diagnostic accuracy across observers of varying experience levels.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: