Inter-observer differences in interpretation of coronary pressure-wire pullback data by non-expert interventional cardiologists

Takayuki Warisawa, James P. Howard, Christopher M. Cook, Yousif Ahmad, Shunichi Doi, Masafumi Nakayama, Sonoka Goto, Yohei Yakuta, Kenichi Karube, Fumiyasu Seike, Teruyoshi Uetani, Tadashi Murai, Yuetsu Kikuta, Yasutsugu Shiono, Yoshiaki Kawase, Matthew J. Shun-Shin, Toshiki Kaihara, Takumi Higuma, Yuki Ishibashi, Hisao MatsudaHidetaka Nishina, Hitoshi Matsuo, Javier Escaned, Yoshihiro J. Akashi, Justin E. Davies

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

8 Scopus citations

Abstract

The physiological pattern of coronary artery disease as determined by pressure-wire (PW)-pullback is important for decision-making of revascularization and risk stratification of patients. However, it remains unclear whether inter-observer differences in interpreting PW-pullback data are subject to the expertise of physicians. This study sought to investigate the subjectivity of this assessment among non-experts. Expert interventional cardiologists classified 545 PW-pullback traces into physiologically focal or physiologically diffuse disease pattern. Defining expert-consensus as the reference standard, we evaluated ten non-expert doctors’ classification performance. Observers were stratified equally by two ways: (i) years of experience as interventional cardiologists (middle-level vs. junior-level) and (ii) volume of institutions where they belonged to (high-volume center vs. low-volume center). When judged against the expert-consensus, the agreement of non-expert observers in assessing physiological pattern of disease (focal or diffuse) ranged from 69.1 to 85.0% (p for heterogeneity < 0.0001). There was no evidence for a moderating effect of years of experience; the pooled accuracy of middle-level doctors was 78.8% (95% confidential interval [CI] 72.8–84.7%) vs. 79.1% for junior-level doctors (95% CI 75.9–82.2%, p = 0.95 for difference). On the other hand, we observed a significant moderating effect of center volume. Accuracy across non-experts in high-volume centers was 82.7% (95% CI 80.3–85.1%) vs. 75.1% for low-volume centers (95% CI 71.9–78.3%, p = 0.0002 for difference). Interpretation of PW-pullback by non-expert interventional cardiologists was considerably subjective.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)289-297
Number of pages9
JournalCardiovascular Intervention and Therapeutics
Volume36
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 2021
Externally publishedYes

Keywords

  • Instantaneous wave-free ratio
  • Physiological pattern of disease
  • Pressure-wire pullback

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Inter-observer differences in interpretation of coronary pressure-wire pullback data by non-expert interventional cardiologists'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this