Skip Navigation

European Heart Journal 1987 8(2):171-178;
Copyright © 1987 by the European Society of Cardiology.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by PEART, I.
Right arrow Articles by Hall, R. J. C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by PEART, I.
Right arrow Articles by Hall, R. J. C.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© 1987 The European Society of Cardiology

Subjective analysis of cross-sectional echocardiograms: reproducibility and sources of variability

I. PEART*, A. AUSTIN{dagger} and R. J. C. Hall*,

*Department of Cardiology, Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 4LP
{dagger}Department of Cardiology, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle upon Tyne NE7 7DN, U.K.

Received 17 October 1985; revised 17 July 1986; .

Address for correspondence. Dr R. J. C. Hall, Ward 14 Office, Royal Victoria Infirmary, Queen Victoria Road, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 4LP, U.K.

Abstract

Subjective analysis of left ventricular segmental wall motion is widely used to assess regional left ventricular function and the effects of intervention in patients with ischaemic heart disease. To determine its reproducibility we studied 20 consecutive men with pruven ischaemic heart disease and 10 age-matched control subjects. Standard par asternal, apical and subcostal views were attempted in all subjects by two echocardiographers, and echoes were reported by two analysers, each on two occasions. The left ventricle was subdivided into 5 segments, and segmental wall motion scored as normal, hypokinetic, akinetic, dyskinetic or inadequately visualised. The different sources of variability were evaluated.

The echocardiographers contributed little variability, the frequency and reproducibility of reporting being the same for echoes produced by each echocardiographer. The only exception was for subcostal views in which one echocardiographer produced significantly more reportable segments than the other (42% vs 27%; P < 0.001). Within and between analyser variability was large. Replicate analysis of the same segment showed within analyser agreement of 92% for one analyser but only 80% for the other. Between analyser agreement was 89% for some segments but only 63% for others and was best in those segments where both analysers infrequently reported abnormal wall motion. Reporting bias is thus an important variable.

The subjective assessment of regional left ventricular function thus has major limitations for general application particularly when being used in longitudinal studies.

Key Words: Left ventricular function • observer error


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.