Scholarlink

Aim <p>To compare the reproducibility in reporting of coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) or cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) by certified readers for CCTA and CMR by the German Society of Cardiology (DGK) versus that by non-certified readers.</p> Methods <p>The study included 40 randomly selected CCTA and vasodilator stress CMR patient datasets. For CCTA, the degree of lumen narrowing, plaque composition, and high-risk plaque features were assessed. For CMR, wall motion and perfusion abnormalities and late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) were rated. All measures were conducted by segments and for individual patients. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were calculated to assess agreement between non-certified (<i>n</i> = 4) vs. DGK-certified readers (<i>n</i> = 4).</p> Results <p>ICC for assessment of luminal narrowing, plaque composition, and high-risk features were, respectively, 0.65 (95% confidence intervals [CI] 0.59–0.69), 0.64 (95%CI 0.45–0.80), and 0.45 (95%CI 0.22–0.66) for non-certified versus 0.78 (95%CI 0.74–0.81), 0.88 (95%CI 0.79–0.93), and 0.89 (95%CI 0.81–0.95) for DGK-certified readers (<i>p</i> &lt; 0.001 for all). ICC for the assessment of wall motion, perfusion, and LGE were, respectively, 0.41 (95%CI 0.35–0.48), 0.27 (95%CI 0.18–0.38), and 0.48 (95%CI 0.41–0.54) for non-certified versus 0.71 (95%CI 0.67–0.75), 0.71 (95%CI 0.67–0.75) and 0.67 (95%CI 0.62–0.71) for DGK-certified readers (<i>p</i> &lt; 0.001 for all). The agreement was excellent among DGK-certified readers for obstructive CAD (≥ 70% lumen narrowing) assessed by CCTA and high for abnormal perfusion and for LGE by CMR in a per-patient analysis (0.88; 95%CI 0.79–0.94 and 0.84; 95%CI 0.71–0.92), respectively.</p> Conclusion <p>Substantially better CCTA and CMR reporting was observed for DGK-certified cardiologists, who achieved high agreement for diagnosing the presence or absence of obstructive CAD by CCTA and abnormal perfusion by CMR. Since important clinical decisions may be based on these readings, our data support quality-controlled education programs for advanced cardiac imaging.</p> Graphical abstract <p><b>Central illustration: </b>Agreement between non-certified readers and DGK-certified Level II or III readers, including the degree of stenosis, plaque composition, and high-risk features for CCTA assessments and wall motion, perfusion, and LGE analysis for CMR assessments.</p> <p></p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Observer variabilities for the diagnosis of coronary artery disease using anatomical and functional testing: the impact of certification

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年5月8日

查看全文
  • Grigorios Korosoglou,
  • Nadine Abanador-Kamper,
  • Christian Tesche,
  • Matthias Renker,
  • Florian André,
  • Loris Weichsel,
  • Michaela Hell,
  • Florian Bönner,
  • Mareike Cramer,
  • Sebastian Kelle,
  • Jeanette Schulz-Menger,
  • Wolfgang Fehske,
  • Andreas Rolf,
  • Norbert Frey,
  • Holger Thiele,
  • Stephan Baldus

摘要

Aim

To compare the reproducibility in reporting of coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) or cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) by certified readers for CCTA and CMR by the German Society of Cardiology (DGK) versus that by non-certified readers.

Methods

The study included 40 randomly selected CCTA and vasodilator stress CMR patient datasets. For CCTA, the degree of lumen narrowing, plaque composition, and high-risk plaque features were assessed. For CMR, wall motion and perfusion abnormalities and late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) were rated. All measures were conducted by segments and for individual patients. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were calculated to assess agreement between non-certified (n = 4) vs. DGK-certified readers (n = 4).

Results

ICC for assessment of luminal narrowing, plaque composition, and high-risk features were, respectively, 0.65 (95% confidence intervals [CI] 0.59–0.69), 0.64 (95%CI 0.45–0.80), and 0.45 (95%CI 0.22–0.66) for non-certified versus 0.78 (95%CI 0.74–0.81), 0.88 (95%CI 0.79–0.93), and 0.89 (95%CI 0.81–0.95) for DGK-certified readers (p < 0.001 for all). ICC for the assessment of wall motion, perfusion, and LGE were, respectively, 0.41 (95%CI 0.35–0.48), 0.27 (95%CI 0.18–0.38), and 0.48 (95%CI 0.41–0.54) for non-certified versus 0.71 (95%CI 0.67–0.75), 0.71 (95%CI 0.67–0.75) and 0.67 (95%CI 0.62–0.71) for DGK-certified readers (p < 0.001 for all). The agreement was excellent among DGK-certified readers for obstructive CAD (≥ 70% lumen narrowing) assessed by CCTA and high for abnormal perfusion and for LGE by CMR in a per-patient analysis (0.88; 95%CI 0.79–0.94 and 0.84; 95%CI 0.71–0.92), respectively.

Conclusion

Substantially better CCTA and CMR reporting was observed for DGK-certified cardiologists, who achieved high agreement for diagnosing the presence or absence of obstructive CAD by CCTA and abnormal perfusion by CMR. Since important clinical decisions may be based on these readings, our data support quality-controlled education programs for advanced cardiac imaging.

Graphical abstract

Central illustration: Agreement between non-certified readers and DGK-certified Level II or III readers, including the degree of stenosis, plaque composition, and high-risk features for CCTA assessments and wall motion, perfusion, and LGE analysis for CMR assessments.