Key result
ECG interpretation for type 2 Brugada pattern showed slight interobserver agreement (Fleiss K<0.20) across all cardiologist categories, highlighting difficulties in diagnosis.
Why the study?
Differentiation of type 2 Brugada pattern from incomplete right bundle branch block or normal rSr' pattern can be insidious.
Is there high interobserver and intraobserver agreement in the diagnosis of type 2 Brugada pattern among cardiologists with different skill levels?
Cross-Sectional (n=42)
Is there high interobserver and intraobserver agreement in the diagnosis of type 2 Brugada pattern among cardiologists with different skill levels?
There is poor interobserver and intraobserver agreement in the ECG diagnosis of type 2 Brugada pattern, even among experts, highlighting the critical need for clinical and anamnestic data.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Poor agreement in type 2 Brugada ECG diagnosis warrants caution in isolated interpretation; leaves open need for standardized criteria and clinical integration.
BACKGROUND: Differentiation of Type 2 Brugada Pattern (BP) from incomplete right bundle branch block or normal rSr' pattern can be insidious. The aim of this study was to assess interobserver and intraobserver agreement in the diagnosis of type 2 BP in a cohort of cardiologists with different skills. METHODS: intercostal space. We proposed these ECGs, specifying to use 2012 Consensus conference criteria for diagnosis of type 2 BP, to 42 participants: 14 arrhythmologists, 14 general cardiologists and 14 electrophysiology (EP) fellows. The same 14 ECGs, with a different order, were proposed fifteen days later to the same cohort to assess intraobserver variability. Authors analyzed all 14 ECGs in order to assess whether 2012 Consensus Conference criteria for BP were fulfilled. All patients underwent provocative test with IC antiarrhythmics drugs (flecainide) in order to exclude or confirm the diagnosis of Brugada Syndrome (BrS). RESULTS: Slight interobserver agreement (Fleiss K<0.20) in the diagnosis of type 2 BP was observed in all three categories of cardiologists. Considering five operators per class, intraobserver agreement is variable (k ranging from 0.000 to 0.857), with a slight superiority of arrhytmologists (k minimum value 0.276; k maximum value 0.857). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated, for the first time, a low interobserver agreement in diagnosis of type 2 BP in categories of cardiologists with different abilities. Reproducibility of type 2 BP diagnosis (intraobserver agreement) is poor, even among experts. These findings highlight the difficulties in analysis of ECG with BrS suspicion and, therefore, underscore the key role of clinical and anamnestic data.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Crea et al. (2020) conducted a cross-sectional in Type 2 Brugada Pattern (n=42). ECG interpretation for type 2 Brugada pattern was evaluated on Interobserver agreement in the diagnosis of type 2 Brugada pattern (Fleiss K<0.20). ECG interpretation for type 2 Brugada pattern showed slight interobserver agreement (Fleiss K<0.20) across all cardiologist categories, highlighting difficulties in diagnosis.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: