PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
April 1, 1976Circulation772 citationsOpen Access

Interobserver variability in coronary angiography.

View Full Paper
LZLeonard M. ZirSMStephen W. MillerRDRobert E. Dinsmore

Key Points

  • To evaluate the interobserver variability among experienced angiographers in assessing coronary artery stenosis and left ventricular wall motion abnormalities.
  • Four experienced coronary angiographers independently evaluated 20 coronary angiograms.
  • Observers assessed stenosis significance and wall motion abnormalities using defined criteria.
  • Disagreement was quantified by differences in grading and agreement rates among observers.
  • Only 65% of observers agreed on significant stenosis (>50% narrowing) in the proximal left anterior descending artery.
  • In 15% of angiograms, there was disagreement on lesions in the main left coronary artery.
  • A mean of 42% disagreement was noted in grading left ventricular wall motion abnormalities.

Abstract

Four experienced coronary angiographers (two radiologists and two cardiologists) independently assessed the location and degree of coronary artery stenosis, and the location and degree of left ventricular wall motion abnormalities in 20 coronary angiograms. Marked interobserver variability was noted in quantifying percent coronary artery stenosis and degree of left ventricular wall motion abnormalities. For example, in only 13/20 (65%) of the coronary angiograms did all observers agree about the significance of a stenosis (defined as greater than 50% in diameter luminal narrowing) in the proximal or mid left anterior descending coronary artery. In 3/20 (15%) angiograms there was disagreement by at least one observer about the significance of lesions noted in the main left coronary artery. The ventricle was divided into five segments and the degree of wall motion abnormality graded into six categories of increasing severity from normal to dyskinesis. There was a 42% mean disagreement among all four observers where a disagreement between observers was defined as any difference in grading wall motion abnormalities. Interobserver variability reveals a significant limitation of coronary angiography.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Zir et al. (1976) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6978ee9adb71e374d5253d33https://doi.org/10.1161/01.cir.53.4.627
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Observer agreement in evaluating coronary angiograms.1975 · 449 citations
  2. 2P23 Inter-observer variability of coronary stenosis characterized by coronary angiography: a single-centre retrospective chart review by staff cardiologists2024
  3. 3Interobserver Variability of Coronary Stenosis Characterized by Coronary Angiography: A Single-Center (Toronto General Hospital) Retrospective Chart Review by Staff Cardiologists2024 · 8 citations
  4. 4Inter-observer reliability in the interpretation of coronary angiograms1996 · 2 citations
  5. 5Variability and reproducibility of quantitative left ventricular angiography1989 · 10 citations