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.
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.
Authors: Olga Lazoura; Tevfik F Ismail; Christopher Pavitt; Alistair Lindsay; Mona Sriharan; Michael Rubens; Simon Padley; Alison Duncan; Tom Wong; Edward Nicol Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2015-09-29 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Weichun Wu; Na Zhang; David H Hsi; Lili Niu; Yong Jiang; Yang Wang; Zhenhui Zhu; Hao Wang Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2019-06-19 Impact factor: 3.411
Authors: Pietro Spagnolo; Manuela Giglio; Daniela Di Marco; Paola M Cannaò; Eustachio Agricola; Paolo E Della Bella; Caterina B Monti; Francesco Sardanelli Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2020-09-04 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Wael Alqarawi; Elysia Grose; F Daniel Ramirez; Lindsey Sikora; Mehrdad Golian; Girish M Nair; Pablo B Nery; Andres Klein; Darryl Davis; Martin S Green; Calum J Redpath; David H Birnie; Ian Burwash; Mouhannad M Sadek Journal: CJC Open Date: 2020-12-24
Authors: Renate B Schnabel; Stephan Camen; Fabian Knebel; Andreas Hagendorff; Udo Bavendiek; Michael Böhm; Wolfram Doehner; Matthias Endres; Klaus Gröschel; Andreas Goette; Hagen B Huttner; Christoph Jensen; Paulus Kirchhof; Grigorios Korosoglou; Ulrich Laufs; Jan Liman; Caroline Morbach; Darius Günther Nabavi; Tobias Neumann-Haefelin; Waltraud Pfeilschifter; Sven Poli; Timolaos Rizos; Andreas Rolf; Joachim Röther; Wolf Rüdiger Schäbitz; Thorsten Steiner; Götz Thomalla; Rolf Wachter; Karl Georg Haeusler Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2021-06-18 Impact factor: 5.460