• Stefania Sacchi, Niti M Dhutia, Matthew J Shun-Shin, Massoud Zolgharni, Nilesh Sutaria, Darrel P Francis, and Graham D Cole.
• Imperial College London, NHLI-Cardiovascular Science, Du Cane Road, London, UK.
• Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2018 Dec 1; 19 (12): 1380-1389.

AimsMeasurements with superior reproducibility are useful clinically and research purposes. Previous reproducibility studies of Doppler assessment of aortic stenosis (AS) have compared only a pair of observers and have not explored the mechanism by which disagreement between operators occurs. Using custom-designed software which stored operators' traces, we investigated the reproducibility of peak and velocity time integral (VTI) measurements across a much larger group of operators and explored the mechanisms by which disagreement arose.Methods And ResultsTwenty-five observers reviewed continuous wave (CW) aortic valve (AV) and pulsed wave (PW) left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) Doppler traces from 20 sequential cases of AS in random order. Each operator unknowingly measured each peak velocity and VTI twice. VTI tracings were stored for comparison. Measuring the peak is much more reproducible than VTI for both PW (coefficient of variation 10.1 vs. 18.0%; P < 0.001) and CW traces (coefficient of variation 4.0 vs. 10.2%; P < 0.001). VTI is inferior because the steep early and late parts of the envelope are difficult to trace reproducibly. Dimensionless index improves reproducibility because operators tended to consistently over-read or under-read on LVOT and AV traces from the same patient (coefficient of variation 9.3 vs. 17.1%; P < 0.001).ConclusionIt is far more reproducible to measure the peak of a Doppler trace than the VTI, a strategy that reduces measurement variance by approximately six-fold. Peak measurements are superior to VTI because tracing the steep slopes in the early and late part of the VTI envelope is difficult to achieve reproducibly.

25 keywords...

hide…