Premium
Variability of echocardiographic measures of left ventricular diastolic function. The HUNT study
Author(s) -
Letnes Jon Magne,
EriksenVolnes Torfinn,
Nes Bjarne,
Wisløff Ulrik,
Salvesen Øyvind,
Dalen Håvard
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
echocardiography
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.404
H-Index - 62
eISSN - 1540-8175
pISSN - 0742-2822
DOI - 10.1111/echo.15073
Subject(s) - kappa , diastole , medicine , cardiology , cohen's kappa , diastolic function , reliability (semiconductor) , reproducibility , doppler echocardiography , statistics , mathematics , blood pressure , physics , power (physics) , geometry , quantum mechanics
Objective Investigate variability related to image acquisition and reading process for echocardiographic measures of left ventricular (LV) diastolic function, and its influence on classification of LV diastolic dysfunction (LVDD). Methods Forty participants (19 women) mean age 62 (28–88) years underwent echocardiographic examinations twice by different echocardiographers and blinded analyses by four readers in a cross‐sectional design. Measurements included quantification of two‐ (2D) and three‐dimensional (3D) recordings of the left atrium (LA) (maximal) volume (LAV max ) and spectral Doppler blood flow and tissue velocities for assessment of LV diastolic function. Variability and reproducibility measures were calculated using variance component analyses and Kappa statistics. Results Image acquisition influenced variability more than image reading (mean 24% and 4% of variance, respectively), but variability from image reading was especially important for 2D LAV max (16% of variance) compared to 4% for 3D LAV max , which was reflected in better agreement for 3D measures. The variability of measures used in classification of LVDD had clinical significance, and agreement across the four raters in classification using current recommendations was only fair (Kappa 0.42), but the agreement improved when using 3D LAV max (Kappa 0.58). Agreement and reliability measures were reported for all measures. Conclusion Performing a new image acquisition influenced variability more than a introducing a new image reader, but there were differences across the different measures. LAV max by 3D is superior to 2D with respect to lower variability. The variability of diastolic measures influences the reliability of LVDD classification, and this should be taken into account in the everyday clinic.