Objective and subjective analysis of left ventricular angiograms

B. R. Chaitman, H. DeMots, J. D. Bristow, Josef Rosch, S. H. Rahimtoola

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

84 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

In order to determine the reproducibility of analyses of left ventriculograms, 35 cineangiograms were evaluated by four observers, two using standard quantitative techniques to determine ventricular volumes and a newly devised quantitative system to evaluate wall motion and two others using only visual inspection of the angiograms. Objective analysis repeated by the same observer correlated well for end diastolic and end systolic volumes and ejection fraction (r = .98, .99, .99, respectively) and only one of 105 (1%) wall segments were identified differently. Variability in assessments increased when comparisons were made with a second objective observer. Correlation coefficients for the three volumetric parameters were .93, .98, and .95 and there was disagreement in the assessment of 8% of wall segments. Wide variability was present between an objective and two subjective observers in analyses of end diastolic volumes (r = .63, .64). Regional wall motion was assessed differently in 19% and 27% of segments, respectively. Though the correlation of objectively and subjectively determined ejection fractions was much better than the correlation for volume (r = .92, .84) it was not as good as the correlation between two objective observers. Occasional errors of clinical significance occurred. It is concluded that subjective analysis has a significant error rate and that reproducibility and accuracy of analysis of left ventriculograms require objective analysis.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)420-425
Number of pages6
JournalCirculation
Volume52
Issue number3
StatePublished - 1975
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Angiography

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Physiology
  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Cite this

Chaitman, B. R., DeMots, H., Bristow, J. D., Rosch, J., & Rahimtoola, S. H. (1975). Objective and subjective analysis of left ventricular angiograms. Circulation, 52(3), 420-425.

Objective and subjective analysis of left ventricular angiograms. / Chaitman, B. R.; DeMots, H.; Bristow, J. D.; Rosch, Josef; Rahimtoola, S. H.

In: Circulation, Vol. 52, No. 3, 1975, p. 420-425.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Chaitman, BR, DeMots, H, Bristow, JD, Rosch, J & Rahimtoola, SH 1975, 'Objective and subjective analysis of left ventricular angiograms', Circulation, vol. 52, no. 3, pp. 420-425.
Chaitman BR, DeMots H, Bristow JD, Rosch J, Rahimtoola SH. Objective and subjective analysis of left ventricular angiograms. Circulation. 1975;52(3):420-425.
Chaitman, B. R. ; DeMots, H. ; Bristow, J. D. ; Rosch, Josef ; Rahimtoola, S. H. / Objective and subjective analysis of left ventricular angiograms. In: Circulation. 1975 ; Vol. 52, No. 3. pp. 420-425.
@article{d8307f047cc54ae3afdb993f2f71350a,
title = "Objective and subjective analysis of left ventricular angiograms",
abstract = "In order to determine the reproducibility of analyses of left ventriculograms, 35 cineangiograms were evaluated by four observers, two using standard quantitative techniques to determine ventricular volumes and a newly devised quantitative system to evaluate wall motion and two others using only visual inspection of the angiograms. Objective analysis repeated by the same observer correlated well for end diastolic and end systolic volumes and ejection fraction (r = .98, .99, .99, respectively) and only one of 105 (1{\%}) wall segments were identified differently. Variability in assessments increased when comparisons were made with a second objective observer. Correlation coefficients for the three volumetric parameters were .93, .98, and .95 and there was disagreement in the assessment of 8{\%} of wall segments. Wide variability was present between an objective and two subjective observers in analyses of end diastolic volumes (r = .63, .64). Regional wall motion was assessed differently in 19{\%} and 27{\%} of segments, respectively. Though the correlation of objectively and subjectively determined ejection fractions was much better than the correlation for volume (r = .92, .84) it was not as good as the correlation between two objective observers. Occasional errors of clinical significance occurred. It is concluded that subjective analysis has a significant error rate and that reproducibility and accuracy of analysis of left ventriculograms require objective analysis.",
author = "Chaitman, {B. R.} and H. DeMots and Bristow, {J. D.} and Josef Rosch and Rahimtoola, {S. H.}",
year = "1975",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "52",
pages = "420--425",
journal = "Circulation",
issn = "0009-7322",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Objective and subjective analysis of left ventricular angiograms

AU - Chaitman, B. R.

AU - DeMots, H.

AU - Bristow, J. D.

AU - Rosch, Josef

AU - Rahimtoola, S. H.

PY - 1975

Y1 - 1975

N2 - In order to determine the reproducibility of analyses of left ventriculograms, 35 cineangiograms were evaluated by four observers, two using standard quantitative techniques to determine ventricular volumes and a newly devised quantitative system to evaluate wall motion and two others using only visual inspection of the angiograms. Objective analysis repeated by the same observer correlated well for end diastolic and end systolic volumes and ejection fraction (r = .98, .99, .99, respectively) and only one of 105 (1%) wall segments were identified differently. Variability in assessments increased when comparisons were made with a second objective observer. Correlation coefficients for the three volumetric parameters were .93, .98, and .95 and there was disagreement in the assessment of 8% of wall segments. Wide variability was present between an objective and two subjective observers in analyses of end diastolic volumes (r = .63, .64). Regional wall motion was assessed differently in 19% and 27% of segments, respectively. Though the correlation of objectively and subjectively determined ejection fractions was much better than the correlation for volume (r = .92, .84) it was not as good as the correlation between two objective observers. Occasional errors of clinical significance occurred. It is concluded that subjective analysis has a significant error rate and that reproducibility and accuracy of analysis of left ventriculograms require objective analysis.

AB - In order to determine the reproducibility of analyses of left ventriculograms, 35 cineangiograms were evaluated by four observers, two using standard quantitative techniques to determine ventricular volumes and a newly devised quantitative system to evaluate wall motion and two others using only visual inspection of the angiograms. Objective analysis repeated by the same observer correlated well for end diastolic and end systolic volumes and ejection fraction (r = .98, .99, .99, respectively) and only one of 105 (1%) wall segments were identified differently. Variability in assessments increased when comparisons were made with a second objective observer. Correlation coefficients for the three volumetric parameters were .93, .98, and .95 and there was disagreement in the assessment of 8% of wall segments. Wide variability was present between an objective and two subjective observers in analyses of end diastolic volumes (r = .63, .64). Regional wall motion was assessed differently in 19% and 27% of segments, respectively. Though the correlation of objectively and subjectively determined ejection fractions was much better than the correlation for volume (r = .92, .84) it was not as good as the correlation between two objective observers. Occasional errors of clinical significance occurred. It is concluded that subjective analysis has a significant error rate and that reproducibility and accuracy of analysis of left ventriculograms require objective analysis.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0016720488&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0016720488&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 1157239

AN - SCOPUS:0016720488

VL - 52

SP - 420

EP - 425

JO - Circulation

JF - Circulation

SN - 0009-7322

IS - 3

ER -