Search

Quality in stress echocardiography interpretation is often gauged against coronary angiography (CA) data but anatomic obstructive coronary disease on CA is an imperfect gold standard for a stress induced wall motion abnormality. We examined the utility of crowd-sourcing a “majority-vote” consensus as an alternative ‘gold standard’ against which to evaluate the accuracy of an individual echocardiographer’s interpretation of stress echocardiography studies. Participants independently interpreted baseline and post-exercise stress echocardiographic images of cases that had undergone follow up CA within 3 months of the stress echo in two surveys, 2 years apart. We examined the agreement of consensus on survey (survey participant response (> 60%) for one decision) with the stress echocardiography clinical read and with CA results. In the first survey, 29 participants reviewed and independently interpreted 14 stress echo cases. Consensus was reached in all 14 cases. There was good agreement between clinical and consensus (kappa = 0.57), survey participant response and consensus (kappa = 0.68) and consensus and CA results (kappa = 0.40). In the validation survey, the agreement between clinical reads and consensus (kappa = 0.75) and survey participant response and consensus (kappa = 0.81) remained excellent. Independent consensus is achievable and offers a fair comparison for stress echocardiographic interpretation. Future validation work, in other laboratories, and against hard outcomes, is necessary to test the feasibility and effectiveness of this approach.

Background— The management of aortic stenosis rests on accurate echocardiographic diagnosis. Hence, it was chosen as a test case to examine the utility of continuous quality improvement (CQI) approaches to increase echocardiographic data accuracy and reliability. A novel, multistep CQI program was designed and prospectively used to investigate whether it could minimize the difference in aortic valve mean gradients reported by echocardiography when compared with cardiac catheterization. Methods and Results— The Duke Echo Laboratory compiled a multidisciplinary CQI team including 4 senior sonographers and MD faculty to develop a mapped CQI process that incorporated Intersocietal Accreditation Commission standards. Quarterly, the CQI team reviewed all moderate- or greater-severity aortic stenosis echocardiography studies with concomitant catheterization data, and deidentified individual and group results were shared at meetings attended by cardiologists and sonographers. After review of 2011 data, the CQI team proposed specific amendments implemented over 2012: the use of nontraditional imaging and Doppler windows as well as evaluation of aortic gradients by a second sonographer. The primary outcome measure was agreement between catheterization- and echocardiography-derived mean gradients calculated by using the coverage probability index with a prespecified acceptable echocardiography–catheterization difference of P =0.03; 98 cases, year 2011; 70 cases, year 2013). The proportion of patients referred for invasive valve hemodynamics decreased from 47% pre-CQI to 19% post-CQI ( P Conclusions— A laboratory practice pattern that was amenable to reform was identified, and a multistep modification was designed and implemented that produced clinically valuable performance improvements. The new protocol improved aortic stenosis mean gradient agreement between echocardiography and catheterization and was associated with a measurable decrease in referrals of patients for invasive studies.