Key result
Multiplane TEE shows a ~22% interobserver disagreement rate for diagnosing LAA thrombi.
Why the study?
What is the interobserver variability between independent echocardiographic laboratories in diagnosing left atrial appendage thrombi using multiplane TEE?
Observational (n=50)
Single-blind
Yes
What is the interobserver variability between independent echocardiographic laboratories in diagnosing left atrial appendage thrombi using multiplane TEE?
Effect estimate: kappa = 0.5
Interobserver variability in diagnosing left atrial appendage thrombi by multiplane TEE remains high, primarily due to reverberation artifacts and severe spontaneous echocardiographic contrast.
High TEE variability for LAA thrombi warrants diagnostic caution; leaves open standardization of criteria in future studies.
BACKGROUND: Transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) is regarded as the method of choice for imaging left atrial appendage thrombi (LAAT). However, the interobserver variability among 2 independent echocardiographic laboratories in diagnosing LAAT by multiplane TEE has not yet been assessed. METHODS AND RESULTS: The videorecordings of 50 patients in atrial fibrillation (25 from each laboratory) were blindly reviewed by 1 experienced observer from each institution. LAAT were assessed as present, absent or questionable. Indications for TEE were: cardioversion (n=17), valve disease (n=13), endocarditis (n=12), or embolism (n=8). The prevalence of LAAT was 10% (observer 1) vs 12% (observer 2). A questionable LAAT was assessed in 6% vs 12% and a LAAT was excluded in 84% vs 76%, respectively. By head-to-head comparison, disagreement occurred in 11 cases (22%, kappa=0.5). Discrepant results were not related to the echocardiographic equipment. Problems occurred because of reverberation artifacts of the ridge between the left atrial appendage and left upper pulmonary vein (n=5), and in differentiating LAAT from spontaneous echocardiographic contrast (n=4) or an echogenic atrioventricular groove (n=1). The differentiation of pectinate muscles from LAAT was the reason for disagreement in only 1 case. Eliminating the category of questionable thrombi increased the kappa value to 0.65. In 5 patients undergoing cardiac surgery, both observers had agreed on the presence (n=1) or absence (n=4) of LAAT, and intraoperatively the results of TEE were confirmed. CONCLUSION: Even with multiplane TEE, interobserver variability among 2 independent echocardiographic laboratories for diagnosing LAAT remains high because of problems in differentiating LAAT from spontaneous echocardiographic contrast and reverberation artifacts.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Schneider et al. (2006) conducted an observational in Atrial fibrillation (n=50). Multiplane transesophageal echocardiography vs. Interobserver comparison was evaluated on Interobserver agreement for diagnosing left atrial appendage thrombi (kappa = 0.5). Multiplane transesophageal echocardiography showed high interobserver variability for diagnosing left atrial appendage thrombi between two independent laboratories, with a 22% disagreement rate (kappa = 0.5).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: