Erschienen in:
26.05.2017 | Original Paper
Stress echocardiography with smartphone: real-time remote reading for regional wall motion
verfasst von:
Maria Chiara Scali, Clarissa Carmona de Azevedo Bellagamba, Quirino Ciampi, Iana Simova, José Luis de Castro e Silva Pretto, Ana Djordjevic-Dikic, Claudio Dodi, Lauro Cortigiani, Angela Zagatina, Paolo Trambaiolo, Marco R. Torres, Rodolfo Citro, Paolo Colonna, Marco Paterni, Eugenio Picano, on behalf of the Stress Echo 2020 study group of the Italian Society of Cardiovascular Echography
Erschienen in:
The International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging
|
Ausgabe 11/2017
Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten
Abstract
The diffusion of smart-phones offers access to the best remote expertise in stress echo (SE). To evaluate the reliability of SE based on smart-phone filming and reading. A set of 20 SE video-clips were read in random sequence with a multiple choice six-answer test by ten readers from five different countries (Italy, Brazil, Serbia, Bulgaria, Russia) of the “SE2020” study network. The gold standard to assess accuracy was a core-lab expert reader in agreement with angiographic verification (0 = wrong, 1 = right). The same set of 20 SE studies were read, in random order and >2 months apart, on desktop Workstation and via smartphones by ten remote readers. Image quality was graded from 1 = poor but readable, to 3 = excellent. Kappa (k) statistics was used to assess intra- and inter-observer agreement. The image quality was comparable in desktop workstation vs. smartphone (2.0 ± 0.5 vs. 2.4 ± 0.7, p = NS). The average reading time per case was similar for desktop versus smartphone (90 ± 39 vs. 82 ± 54 s, p = NS). The overall diagnostic accuracy of the ten readers was similar for desktop workstation vs. smartphone (84 vs. 91%, p = NS). Intra-observer agreement (desktop vs. smartphone) was good (k = 0.81 ± 0.14). Inter-observer agreement was good and similar via desktop or smartphone (k = 0.69 vs. k = 0.72, p = NS). The diagnostic accuracy and consistency of SE reading among certified readers was high and similar via desktop workstation or via smartphone.