BACKGROUND: Studies conducted decades ago described substantial disagreement and errors in physicians' angiographic interpretation of coronary stenosis severity. Despite the potential implications of such findings, no large-scale efforts to measure or improve clinical interpretation were subsequently undertaken. METHODS AND RESULTS: We compared clinical interpretation of stenosis severity in coronary lesions with an independent assessment using quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) in 175 randomly selected patients undergoing elective percutaneous coronary intervention at 7 US hospitals in 2011. To assess agreement, we calculated mean difference in percent diameter stenosis between clinical interpretation and QCA and a Cohen weighted κ statistic. Of 216 treated lesions, median percent diameter stenosis was 80.0% (quartiles 1 and 3, 80.0% and 90.0%), with 213 (98.6%) assessed as ≥70%. Mean difference in percent diameter stenosis between clinical interpretation and QCA was 8.2±8.4%, reflecting an average higher percent diameter stenosis by clinical interpretation (P<0.001). A weighted κ of 0.27 (95% confidence interval, 0.18-0.36) was found between the 2 measurements. Of 213 lesions considered ≥70% by clinical interpretation, 56 (26.3%) were <70% by QCA, although none were <50%. Differences between the 2 measurements were largest for intermediate lesions by QCA (50% to <70%), with variation existing across sites. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians tended to assess coronary lesions treated with percutaneous coronary intervention as more severe than measurements by QCA. Almost all treated lesions were ≥70% by clinical interpretation, whereas approximately one quarter were <70% by QCA. These findings suggest opportunities to improve clinical interpretation of coronary angiography.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Studies conducted decades ago described substantial disagreement and errors in physicians' angiographic interpretation of coronary stenosis severity. Despite the potential implications of such findings, no large-scale efforts to measure or improve clinical interpretation were subsequently undertaken. METHODS AND RESULTS: We compared clinical interpretation of stenosis severity in coronary lesions with an independent assessment using quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) in 175 randomly selected patients undergoing elective percutaneous coronary intervention at 7 US hospitals in 2011. To assess agreement, we calculated mean difference in percent diameter stenosis between clinical interpretation and QCA and a Cohen weighted κ statistic. Of 216 treated lesions, median percent diameter stenosis was 80.0% (quartiles 1 and 3, 80.0% and 90.0%), with 213 (98.6%) assessed as ≥70%. Mean difference in percent diameter stenosis between clinical interpretation and QCA was 8.2±8.4%, reflecting an average higher percent diameter stenosis by clinical interpretation (P<0.001). A weighted κ of 0.27 (95% confidence interval, 0.18-0.36) was found between the 2 measurements. Of 213 lesions considered ≥70% by clinical interpretation, 56 (26.3%) were <70% by QCA, although none were <50%. Differences between the 2 measurements were largest for intermediate lesions by QCA (50% to <70%), with variation existing across sites. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians tended to assess coronary lesions treated with percutaneous coronary intervention as more severe than measurements by QCA. Almost all treated lesions were ≥70% by clinical interpretation, whereas approximately one quarter were <70% by QCA. These findings suggest opportunities to improve clinical interpretation of coronary angiography.
Authors: P J Scanlon; D P Faxon; A M Audet; B Carabello; G J Dehmer; K A Eagle; R D Legako; D F Leon; J A Murray; S E Nissen; C J Pepine; R M Watson; J L Ritchie; R J Gibbons; M D Cheitlin; T J Gardner; A Garson; R O Russell; T J Ryan; S C Smith Journal: Circulation Date: 1999-05-04 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: J H Reiber; P W Serruys; C J Kooijman; W Wijns; C J Slager; J J Gerbrands; J C Schuurbiers; A den Boer; P G Hugenholtz Journal: Circulation Date: 1985-02 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Joshua J Fenton; Stephen H Taplin; Patricia A Carney; Linn Abraham; Edward A Sickles; Carl D'Orsi; Eric A Berns; Gary Cutter; R Edward Hendrick; William E Barlow; Joann G Elmore Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2007-04-05 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: E D Folland; R A Vogel; P Hartigan; E R Bates; G J Beauman; T Fortin; C Boucher; A F Parisi Journal: Circulation Date: 1994-05 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Gregory J Dehmer; Douglas Weaver; Matthew T Roe; Sarah Milford-Beland; Susan Fitzgerald; Anthony Hermann; John Messenger; Issam Moussa; Kirk Garratt; John Rumsfeld; Ralph G Brindis Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2012-10-17 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Rohan Shah; Eric Yow; William Schuyler Jones; Louis P Kohl; Andrzej S Kosinski; Udo Hoffmann; Kerry L Lee; Christopher B Fordyce; Daniel B Mark; Alicia Lowe; Pamela S Douglas; Manesh R Patel Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2016-10-26 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Anjan K Chakrabarti; Maria V Grau-Sepulveda; Sean O'Brien; Cassandra Abueg; Angelo Ponirakis; Elizabeth Delong; Eric Peterson; Lloyd W Klein; Kirk N Garratt; William S Weintraub; C Michael Gibson Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2014-02-04 Impact factor: 6.546
Authors: Haibo Zhang; Lin Mu; Shuang Hu; Brahmajee K Nallamothu; Alexandra J Lansky; Bo Xu; Georgios Bouras; David J Cohen; John A Spertus; Frederick A Masoudi; Jeptha P Curtis; Runlin Gao; Junbo Ge; Yuejin Yang; Jing Li; Xi Li; Xin Zheng; Yetong Li; Harlan M Krumholz; Lixin Jiang Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2018-02-01 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Daixin Ding; Junqing Yang; Jelmer Westra; Yundai Chen; Yunxiao Chang; Martin Sejr-Hansen; Su Zhang; Evald H Christiansen; Niels R Holm; Bo Xu; Shengxian Tu Journal: Cardiovasc Diagn Ther Date: 2019-10