Impact of experience on visual and Simpson's biplane echocardiographic assessment of left ventricular ejection fraction.

IF 1.3 4区 医学 Q4 PHYSIOLOGY Clinical Physiology and Functional Imaging Pub Date : 2024-12-02 DOI:10.1111/cpf.12918
S Akil, J Castaings, P Thind, T Åhlfeldt, M Akhtar, A T Gonon, M Quintana, K Bouma
{"title":"Impact of experience on visual and Simpson's biplane echocardiographic assessment of left ventricular ejection fraction.","authors":"S Akil, J Castaings, P Thind, T Åhlfeldt, M Akhtar, A T Gonon, M Quintana, K Bouma","doi":"10.1111/cpf.12918","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>In clinical routine, health care professionals with various levels of experience assess left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) by echocardiography. The aim was to investigate to what extent visual and Simpson's biplane assessment of LVEF, using two-dimensional (2D) transthoracic echocardiography (TTE), is affected by the evaluator's experience.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Ultrasound images of 140 patients were assessed, visually and with Simpson's biplane method, by six evaluators divided into three groups based on echocardiographic experience level (beginner, intermediate and expert). The evaluators were blinded to each other's LVEF assessments. Bland-Altman analyses (bias±SD) were performed to assess agreement. P-values < 0.05 with the performed paired t-test were considered statistically significant.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Level of agreement in LVEF was good between evaluators within the expert group: visual = LVEF<sub>expert 1</sub> vs LVEF<sub>expert 2</sub>: -0.4 ± 6.4 (p = 0.46); Simpson's biplane = LVEF<sub>expert 1</sub> vs LVEF<sub>expert 2</sub>: 0.96 ± 7.0 (p = 0.11), somewhat lower within the intermediate group: visual = LVEF<sub>intermediate 1</sub> vs LVEF<sub>intermediate 2</sub>: -1.2 ± 4.4 (p = 0.004); Simpson's biplane = LVEF<sub>intermediate 1</sub> vs LVEF <sub>intermediate 2</sub>: -3.3 ± 5.0 (p < 0.001) and lowest for beginners: visual = LVEF<sub>beginner 1</sub> vs LVEF<sub>beginner 2</sub>: 2.3 ± 9.8 (p = 0.007), Simpson's biplane = LVEF<sub>beginner 1</sub> vs LVEF beginner 2: -1.8 ± 8.7 (p = 0.02). The agreement between LVEF<sub>expert</sub> and LVEFs by the two other groups was: visual = LVEF<sub>expert</sub> vs LVEF<sub>beginner</sub>: 1.5 ± 6.0 (p = 0.005); LVEF<sub>intermediate</sub>: -3.0 ± 4.4 (p < 0.001) and Simpson's biplane = LVEF<sub>expert</sub> vs LVEF<sub>beginner</sub>: 3.2 ± 6.3 (p < 0.001); LVEF<sub>intermediate</sub>: -2.2 ± 4.7 (p < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The evaluator's level of experience affects visual and Simpson's biplane assessment of LVEF by 2D-TTE, with highest variability being among beginners. Furthermore, a second opinion is recommended when assessing reduced LVEF even for evaluators with intermediate and expert experience.</p>","PeriodicalId":10504,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Physiology and Functional Imaging","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Physiology and Functional Imaging","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/cpf.12918","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PHYSIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: In clinical routine, health care professionals with various levels of experience assess left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) by echocardiography. The aim was to investigate to what extent visual and Simpson's biplane assessment of LVEF, using two-dimensional (2D) transthoracic echocardiography (TTE), is affected by the evaluator's experience.

Methods: Ultrasound images of 140 patients were assessed, visually and with Simpson's biplane method, by six evaluators divided into three groups based on echocardiographic experience level (beginner, intermediate and expert). The evaluators were blinded to each other's LVEF assessments. Bland-Altman analyses (bias±SD) were performed to assess agreement. P-values < 0.05 with the performed paired t-test were considered statistically significant.

Results: Level of agreement in LVEF was good between evaluators within the expert group: visual = LVEFexpert 1 vs LVEFexpert 2: -0.4 ± 6.4 (p = 0.46); Simpson's biplane = LVEFexpert 1 vs LVEFexpert 2: 0.96 ± 7.0 (p = 0.11), somewhat lower within the intermediate group: visual = LVEFintermediate 1 vs LVEFintermediate 2: -1.2 ± 4.4 (p = 0.004); Simpson's biplane = LVEFintermediate 1 vs LVEF intermediate 2: -3.3 ± 5.0 (p < 0.001) and lowest for beginners: visual = LVEFbeginner 1 vs LVEFbeginner 2: 2.3 ± 9.8 (p = 0.007), Simpson's biplane = LVEFbeginner 1 vs LVEF beginner 2: -1.8 ± 8.7 (p = 0.02). The agreement between LVEFexpert and LVEFs by the two other groups was: visual = LVEFexpert vs LVEFbeginner: 1.5 ± 6.0 (p = 0.005); LVEFintermediate: -3.0 ± 4.4 (p < 0.001) and Simpson's biplane = LVEFexpert vs LVEFbeginner: 3.2 ± 6.3 (p < 0.001); LVEFintermediate: -2.2 ± 4.7 (p < 0.001).

Conclusions: The evaluator's level of experience affects visual and Simpson's biplane assessment of LVEF by 2D-TTE, with highest variability being among beginners. Furthermore, a second opinion is recommended when assessing reduced LVEF even for evaluators with intermediate and expert experience.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
5.60%
发文量
62
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Clinical Physiology and Functional Imaging publishes reports on clinical and experimental research pertinent to human physiology in health and disease. The scope of the Journal is very broad, covering all aspects of the regulatory system in the cardiovascular, renal and pulmonary systems with special emphasis on methodological aspects. The focus for the journal is, however, work that has potential clinical relevance. The Journal also features review articles on recent front-line research within these fields of interest. Covered by the major abstracting services including Current Contents and Science Citation Index, Clinical Physiology and Functional Imaging plays an important role in providing effective and productive communication among clinical physiologists world-wide.
期刊最新文献
Impact of experience on visual and Simpson's biplane echocardiographic assessment of left ventricular ejection fraction. Within-session repeatability of Doppler ultrasound leg blood flow assessments during exercise in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Impact of structural factors around the accessory nerve on the pathogenesis of essential neck and upper-back stiffness: a sonographic investigation. Skin tissue dielectric constant: Time of day and skin depth dependence. Utility of fat-free adipose tissue correction formula for tracking body composition changes with dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1