Background and importanceChest pain is one of the most common presentations to the emergency department (ED). The HEART-score is used to assess the 30-day risk of developing a major adverse cardiac... Show moreBackground and importanceChest pain is one of the most common presentations to the emergency department (ED). The HEART-score is used to assess the 30-day risk of developing a major adverse cardiac event (MACE). The HEART-score enables clinicians to classify patients in low, intermediate, or high-risk groups though little is known as to whether this can be done reliably and reproducibly in a prehospital setting.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to compare the interobserver agreement of the HEART-score between ambulance nurses and ED physicians.Design, settings, and participantsPatients >= 18 years, with chest pain of suspected cardiac origin presented by ambulance to the EDs of four regional hospitals, were prospectively enrolled between October 2018 and April 2019.Outcomes measure and analysisThe primary endpoint was interobserver agreement of the HEART-scores calculated by ambulance nurses compared to those calculated by ED physicians. Agreement was measured using Cohen's Kappa (K) both for overall HEART-score and dichotomized HEART categories. A secondary endpoint was the occurrence of a MACE at 30 days after inclusion.Main resultsA total of 307 patients were enrolled of which 166 patients were male (54%). The mean age was 64.8 years. In 23% (95% confidence interval, 18-27), patients were scored in the low-risk category by both ambulance nurses and ED physicians. The K for the overall HEART-score compared between ambulance nurses and ED physicians was 0.514. The K for the low-risk category versus intermediate and high-risk category was 0.591. Both are defined as 'moderate'. MACE within 30 days occurred in 64 patients (21%). In the low-risk group as defined by the ambulance nurses, there was a 7% risk of MACE compared to an average 5% MACE risk in the ED physician group.ConclusionsThe moderate interobserver agreement of the HEART-score does not currently support the use of the HEART-score by ambulance nurses in a prehospital setting. Training for prehospital nurses is vital to ensure that they are able to calculate the HEART-score accurately. Show less
Background: Inherent to its geometry, echocardiographic imaging of the systemic right ventricle (RV) is challenging. Therefore, echocardiographic assessment of systemic RV function may not always... Show moreBackground: Inherent to its geometry, echocardiographic imaging of the systemic right ventricle (RV) is challenging. Therefore, echocardiographic assessment of systemic RV function may not always be feasible and/or reproducible in daily practice. Here, we aim to validate the usefulness of a comprehensive range of 32 echocardiographic measurements of systemic RV function in a longitudinal cohort by serial assessment of their correlations with cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR)-derived systemic RV ejection fraction (RVEF).Methods: A single-center, retrospective cohort study was performed. Adult patients with a systemic RV who underwent a combination of both CMR and echocardiography at two different points in time were included. Off-line analysis of echocardiographic images was blinded to off-line CMR analysis and vice versa. In half of the echocardiograms, measurements were repeated by a second observer blinded to the results of the first. Correlations between echocardiographic and CMR measures were assessed with Pearson's correlation coefficient and interobserver agreement was quantified with intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC).Results: Fourteen patients were included, of which 4 had congenitally corrected transposition of the great arteries (ccTGA) and 10 patients had TGA late after an atrial switch operation. Eight patients (57%) were female. There was a mean of 8 years between the first and second imaging assessment. Only global systemic RV function, fractional area change (FAC), and global longitudinal strain (GLS) were consistently, i.e., at both time points, correlated with CMR-RVEF (global RV function: r = -0.77/r = -0.63; FAC: r = 0.79/r = 0.67; GLS: r = -0.73/r = -0.70, all p-values < 0.05). The ICC of GLS (0.82 at t = 1, p = 0.006, 0.77 at t = 2, p = 0.024) was higher than the ICC of FAC (0.35 at t = 1, p = 0.196, 0.70 at t = 2, p = 0.051) at both time points.Conclusion: GLS appears to be the most robust echocardiographic measurement of systemic RV function with good correlation with CMR-RVEF and reproducibility. Show less
Purpose: Deformable image registration (DIR) is often validated based on a distance-to-agreement (DTA) criterion of automatically propagated anatomical landmarks that were manually identified. Due... Show morePurpose: Deformable image registration (DIR) is often validated based on a distance-to-agreement (DTA) criterion of automatically propagated anatomical landmarks that were manually identified. Due to human observer variability, however, the performance of the registration method is diluted. The purpose of this study was to evaluate an analysis of variance (ANOVA) based validation to account for such observer variation.Methods: Weekly cone beam CTs (CBCTs) of ten head and neck cancer patients undergoing five weeks of radiotherapy were used. An expert identified 23 anatomical features (landmarks) on the planning CT. The landmarks were automatically propagated to the CBCT using multiregion-of-interest (mROI) registration. Additionally, two human observers independently localized these landmarks on the CBCTs. Subsequently, ANOVA was used to compute the variance of each observer on the pairwise distance (PWD).Results: ANOVA based analysis demonstrated that a classical DTA approach underestimated the precision for the mROI due to human observer variation by about 25%. The systematic error (accuracy) of mROI ranged from 0.13 to 0.17 mm; the variability (1 SD) (precision) ranged from 1.3 to 1.5 mm demonstrating that its performance is dominated by the precision.Conclusions: The PWD-ANOVA method accounts for human observer variation allowing a better estimation of the of DIR errors. c 2012 American Association of Physicists in Medicine. [http://dx.doi.org/10.1118/1.4760990] Show less
