Cardiac computed tomography (CCT) is useful for evaluation of acute chest pain in the emergency department (ED). Though the test needs proper interpretation by someone with expertise in cardiovascular imaging, the critical nature of the information the test provides frequently lead emergency physicians (EPs) to act on their own interpretation. We performed this study to assess how often EPs’ interpretations are in agreement with radiologists’.
This study is a prospective observational study. The target population was patients assessed with CCT for acute chest pain or discomfort. EPs with at least one year CCT experience underwent a one-hour training session before study participation. The most significant lesion, if any, in each arterial segment was assessed for coronary stenosis and plaque calcification. The agreement between EPs’ and radiologists’ interpretation was assessed with Cohen’s kappa and Gwet’s AC1.
One hundred and three patients were enrolled and 412 segments were analyzed. Stenosis grading was identical in 363 segments (88.1%) and the interrater agreement was good (kappa=0.6439, AC1=0.8810). Similarly, the plaque calcification grading was identical in 354 segments (86.6%) and the kappa and AC1 values were 0.5660 and 0.8501, respectively. EPs classified 6 of the 17 arterial segments with significant stenosis reported by radiologists as non-significant stenosis (n=5) or clear (n=2), all of which were proved to be significant by following subsequent invasive coronary angiography.
There was substantial discordance of CCT interpretation between EPs and radiologists. For now, EPs need more education prior to independent CCT reading.
Cardiac CT has become a critical diagnostic test in the arsenal of emergency physicians. However, it is unknown whether they can properly interpret the test.
There was substantial discordance of cardiac CT interpretation between emergency physicians and radiologists. For now, emergency physicians need further education prior to independent cardiac CT reading.
Cardiac computed tomography (CT) is useful for evaluation of undifferentiated acute chest pain in the emergency department (ED) [1,2]. It provides a comprehensive description of the anatomy of a heart and coronary arteries within 10 to 20 minutes non-invasively [1]. It has high negative predictive value for acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and can also detect serious non-coronary etiologies of chest pain such as pulmonary embolism or aortic dissection. These characteristics have appealed to the needs of busy emergency physicians (EPs) and the test is rapidly gaining popularity [3]. Currently, the most up-to-date guideline supports its use in low to intermediate risk patients without obvious ischemic electrocardiographic (ECG) changes or biomarker elevation [4].
Because of its inherent difficulty, the test needs proper interpretation by someone with expertise in cardiovascular imaging [5]. However, the critical nature of the information the test provides frequently leads EPs to act on their own interpretation before a formal report is available despite their questionable image interpreting skills [6,7]. Therefore it is necessary to evaluate how often the average EPs’ interpretation agrees with the radiologists’ and to determine whether such behavior can be regarded as safe for patients. The objective of this study was to measure the interrater agreement between EPs and radiologists in the interpretation of the cardiac CT images of ED patients with acute chest pain.
This study was a prospective observational study assessing the interrater agreement of cardiac CT image interpretation between ED physicians and radiologists. The Institutional Review Board of Seoul National University Bundang Hospital approved the study (IRB number: B-1110/137-001).
The study facility was a urban teaching hospital with an annual ED census of 65,000 visits per year. The study was conducted in 2008 when the facility used a 64-channel multi-detector CT for cardiac imaging. At the beginning of the study, the cardiac CT imaging had been actively used for more than a year in the study ED for evaluation of patients with acute chest pain.
A heterogeneous group of emergency medicine (EM) residents including two postgraduate year (PGY)-2 residents, two PGY-3 residents, and two PGY-4 residents participated in this study. As cardiac CT imaging had been actively used in the study ED for more than a year, they had basic knowledge about how to read a cardiac CT image. At the beginning of the study, they had undergone a one-hour training session (didactic, image review) provided by a radiologist specialized in cardiovascular imaging. The participating EPs were not blinded to the clinical information of enrolled patients which included initial examination findings, ECG and biomarker levels.
Patients presenting with acute chest pain who were determined to require a cardiac CT imaging after initial evaluation that included both ECG and cardiac biomarker tests were prospectively enrolled by the participating EPs unless the following exclusion criteria were met (1) age less than 18 years, (2) pregnancy, (3) contraindication to iodinated contrast or β-blocking agents, (4) atrial fibrillation or markedly irregular rhythm, (5) renal insufficiency (creatinine >1.4 mg/dL), (6) high risk features or previous coronary artery bypass grafting or recent (within 6 months) percutaneous coronary intervention. High risk features included (1) ST-segment elevation, new onset LBBB or pathologic Q-wave in more than two consecutive leads, (2) positive cardiac biomarkers, (3) typical chest pain with ischemic ST-T change (ST-segment depression >1 mm or T-wave inversion >3 mm in more than two consecutive leads that is not proven to be old), (4) any clinical feature of decompensated heart failure, (5) recurrent ventricular arrhythmia or high-degree atrioventricular block, (6) ongoing or recurrent angina at rest or minimal effort, (7) history of recent revascularization within 6 months, and (8) previously documented high-degree stenosis without history of revascularization. Patients who developed any of the high risk features after cardiac CT imaging were not excluded. Patients with suboptimal image result were also not excluded.
All enrolled patients were provided with the usual standard care which was consistent with 2005 American Heart Association guidelines for acute coronary syndrome [8]. For heart rate control, 100 mg of metoprolol was administered orally to patients with resting heart rate above 70 bpm. If further rate control was indicated, intravenous esmolol bolus injection was administered just before the test. Participating EPs read cardiac CT images right after the imaging process. Relevant clinical information and the CT findings observed by the participating physicians were recorded on a study registry form. Although the participating physicians were allowed to make clinical decisions based on their own readings, it was recommended that they wait for a formal report from the radiology department before making any new significant decision. Patients without significant coronary and/or non-coronary lesions were discharged from the ED if no other conflicting clinical findings existed. Upon discharge, a follow up visit to cardiology was arranged.
Cardiac CT findings reported by EPs included the presence and severity of coronary artery stenosis and plaque calcification and other miscellaneous/extra-cardiac findings. The evaluation of stenosis and plaque calcification was done separately for each anatomic unit of coronary arteries (left main artery [LM], left anterior descending artery [LAD], left circumflex artery [LCx], right coronary artery [RCA]) using visual estimation. If there were multiple coronary stenosis/plaques in an arterial unit, the most significant lesion in the unit was sought and analyzed. The severity of stenosis was classified as one of three levels: (1) no stenosis, (2) clinically non-significant stenosis (stenosis less than 50%), and (3) significant stenosis (50% or more). The severity of plaque calcification was measured for the same lesion for plaque characterization that might provide additional prognostic information [9]. The severity of plaque calcification had four levels which were (1) no plaque, (2) calcified plaque (calcified area occupies 50% or more), (3) mixed plaque (less than 50%), and (4) non-calcified plaque. Further distinction between fibrous and lipid-rich plaques was not done because of their wide overlap [10-12]. Radiologists’ interpretation of the same cardiac CT images was reformatted to make direct comparison with the EPs’ interpretation. To assess the longterm (1 year) progress of patients discharged from EDs, the occurrences of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) within a year after discharge from the ED was assessed by patient chart review if there were regular follow-up visits during the first year. Otherwise, a structured telephone interview was performed by an assistant researcher.
The interrater agreement between EPs and radiologists were assessed with Cohen’s kappa and Gwet’s AC1. The kappa coefficient is commonly used to evaluate the interrater agreement of categorical variables between two observers. A kappa value of 1 represents a perfect agreement, whereas a kappa value of 0 represents agreement equal to that of chance alone. A negative value implies that agreement is worse than chance alone. Landis and Koch [13] characterized values <0 as indicating no agreement and 0–0.20 as slight, 0.21–0.40 as fair, 0.41–0.60 as moderate, 0.61– 0.80 as substantial, and 0.81–1 as almost perfect agreement. But the reliability of kappa statistics has been questioned as it is affected by the rater’s classification and risk prevalence of the subjects [14-16]. Gwet [17,18] introduced an alternative “AC1” which is more stable agreement coefficient. The AC1 statistic can be interpreted similarly [17]. We calculated and reported both of the coefficients in addition to the proportionate agreement. The data were analyzed using IBM SPSS ver. 19.0 (IBM Co., Armonk, NY, USA) and Agreestat (Advanced Analytics, Gaithersburg, MD, USA; http://www.agreestat.com).
A total of 104 patients with primary complaints of acute chest pain or discomfort were prospectively enrolled from May 2008 to June 2008. One patient with previous history of coronary artery bypass graft was excluded due to protocol violation. Baseline characteristics of the remaining 103 patients are summarized in Table 1. The mean age was 56±2 years, with 47.6% being men. Heart rate control was required in 84 patients (81.6%). Average heart rate just before CT imaging was 65±8. EPs described 22 cardiac CT (21.4%) as difficult to read. Relatively frequent complaints were beam-hardening/blooming effect due to dense calcification (n=11), motion artifact (n=6), and hypoplastic vessel (n=4). Following CT acquisition, two patients’ serial troponin level increased above reference range and six patients’ serial ECGs showed significant dynamic ST-T change.
The detection of stenosis on each of the four anatomic locations including LM, LAD, LCx, and RCA by EPs was compared to that of radiologists’ formal reports (Table 2). Among the 412 arterial segments that were analyzed by the radiologists, 17 arterial segments (4.1%) showed significant stenosis (>50% stenosis) and 53 arterial segments (12.9%) showed non-significant stenosis. The grading of stenosis was identical in 363 segments (88.1%) and the interrater agreement was good (kappa=0.6439, AC1=0.8810). Cases rated as ‘not difficult to read’ (n=324, 78.6%) were analyzed separately. In 305 segments (94.1%), the grading of stenosis was identical, and the calculated kappa and AC1 values were 0.7552 and 0.9306, respectively. Separate analysis of each coronary artery segment showed a similar rate of agreement. Stenosis grading of the LM, LAD, LCx, and RCA was identical in 87.4%, 86.4%, 91.3%, and 87.4%, respectively. Each segments’ kappa values varied significantly (0.1421, 0.7400, 0.6929, 0.6384) while their AC1 values did not (0.8667, 0.8499, 0.9266, 0.8813).
Of the seventeen arterial segments reported as having significant stenosis by radiologists, EPs classified six as non-significant (Fig, 1, Table 3). EPs also classified 9 of 395 segments that were reported as non significant by radiologists as having significant stenosis of which two were proved to be significant by subsequent invasive coronary angiography. All other discrepancies were regarding the presence of any minor (non-significant) stenosis.
Four hundred and nine arterial segments were analyzed for interrater agreement of plaque characterization. Three hundred fifty-four segments (86.6%) were identical and the kappa and AC1 values were 0.5660 and 0.8501, respectively. Among 323 (80.0%) ‘not difficult to read’ segments 300 segments (92.9%) were identically classified. Overall kappa and AC1 value were 0.6626, 0.9234, respectively. Separate analysis of the LM, LAD, LCx, and RCA showed kappa values of 0.3036, 0.6338, 0.4297, and 0.4297, respectively. AC1 value of each of them was 0.8982, 0.7784, 0.8408, and 0.8408 (Table 4).
Among the 103 study patients, 19 patients (18.5%) were admitted for further evaluation and management. Seventeen patients were admitted to cardiology and two to other departments. Fifteen of the 17 patients underwent coronary angiography and 10 were found to have significant stenosis. The two patients who were admitted to the non-cardiology wards were diagnosed as common bile duct stone and newly-diagnosed lymphoma, respectively. Among the 84 patients who were discharged, two patients were admitted at a follow-up visit to the cardiology outpatient department because of recurrent symptoms. Both of them underwent invasive coronary angiography which found no significant fixed stenosis. Each of them were given a presumptive diagnosis of vasospasm and myocardial bridging, respectively. Sixty-eight patients without significant stenosis were followed more than a year after ED discharge. None of them experienced MACE during the first year.
There have been several studies measuring the interrater agreement of cardiac CT interpetation between radiologists. Their study population and the method of measurement (visual or machine assisted) as well as the resultant agreement coefficients varies significantly. One of the studies adopted visual estimation basedmeasurement for each of the arterial segments, which is similar to the present study. The measured interrater agreement of stenosis grading between radiologists reported in the study was far better (kappa=0.85) [19] compared to the measured interrater agreement between emergency physicians and radiologists in the present study (kappa=0.6439). Although the prevalence of significant stenosis was much lower (4.1% vs. 40.3%) and AC1 value was still high (AC1=0.8810) in the present study, we think that the interrater agreement between radiologists and EPs is not good enough. Considering that six of seventeen segments with significant stenosis reported by radiologists were rated as nonsignificant (n=4) or normal (n=2), EPs’ independent interpretation of the cardiac CT is not justifiable for now.
In patients whose images were ‘not difficult to read,’ the discrepancy of stenosis grading between EPs and radiologists was relatively low. In that subgroup, 94.1% of the analyzed segments had identical interpretation and the interrater agreement coefficients were higher (kappa=0.7552, AC1=0.9036). We assume that a perfect agreement (kappa value more than 0.8) could be achieved in this subgroup, if more comprehensive education was provided.
Plaque characterization can help EPs to localize culprit lesions [20]. The three CT characteristics of culprit lesions (positive vascular remodeling, non-calcified plaque with low HU [<30], spotty calcification) were previously reported [9]. In the present study, we could test the calcification density of plaques only. The overall interrater agreement of plaque characterization using this method was even worse than that of stenosis grading (kappa=0.5660, AC1=0.8501). However, they were better in the ‘not difficult to read’ subgroup (kappa=0.6626, AC1=0.9234).
Limitations of this study are as follows. (1) Even the formal reports from radiologists specialized in cardiovascular imaging are not the gold-standard. And this study we measured only the interrater agreement of coronary CT interpretation between radiologists and EPs. (2) The agreement coefficients such as kappa should be interpreted in the context of population characteristics [17]. Direct comparison with other studies cannot be justified. (3) More detailed description of plaque and stenosis localization using an 18 or 28 segment system has been recommended for formal reporting of coronary CT reading [21]. However we think it is not practical as EPs who participated in this study have limited knowledge and such fine segmentation could cause spuriously low interrater agreement due to discordant localizations. (4) Ancillary findings such as coronary calcium score, wall-motion abnormalities, systolic function and extra-cardiac abnormalities were not analyzed, because of the scarcity of such findings. (5) Only a limited number of EM residents from a single institution participated in this study and the results of this study cannot be generalized to all EM physicians.
In conclusion, the overall interrater agreement for stenosis grading and plaque characterization between EPs and radiologists was not good enough to justify EPs’ independent interpretation and further management based on it. Therefore, for now, EPs need further education before being allowed to independently read cardiac CTs.
1. Hoffmann U, Bamberg F. Is computed tomography coronary angiography the most accurate and effective noninvasive imaging tool to evaluate patients with acute chest pain in the emergency department? CT coronary angiography is the most accurate and effective noninvasive imaging tool for evaluating patients presenting with chest pain to the emergency department. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging 2009; 2:251-63.
7. Eng J, Mysko WK, Weller GE, et al. Interpretation of Emergency Department radiographs: a comparison of emergency medicine physicians with radiologists, residents with faculty, and film with digital display. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2000; 175:1233-8.
11. Schroeder S, Flohr T, Kopp AF, et al. Accuracy of density measurements within plaques located in artificial coronary arteries by X-ray multislice CT: results of a phantom study. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2001; 25:900-6.
Angela Simmons - an American shoe designer, business woman, philanthropist and former editor for Angela's Rundown, a monthly mini magazine targeted for youths of ages 14–19 which covers teen topics, style, music, and fashion that was distributed within Word Up! (magazine) - born on Friday September 18th 1987, in Queens, New York City, New York, United States.
Angela Simmons has a compelling sense of herself as a spiritual being who is the searcher and the seeker of truth. That said, Angela's life is devoted to investigations into the unknown, and finding the answers to the mysteries of life. Monumental as it is, Simmons is well-equipped to handle her mission. She enjoys a fine mind, and is an analytical thinker, capable of great concentration and theoretical insight. Angela Simmons enjoys research, and putting the pieces of an intellectual puzzle together, and once she has enough pieces in place, Angela is capable of highly creative insight and practical solutions to problems.
Angela Simmons enjoys her solitude and prefers to work alone. She needs time to contemplate her ideas without the intrusion of other people's thoughts. She is a lone wolf and a person who lives by his own ideas and methods. As a result, close associations are difficult for Angela to form and keep, especially marriage. Simmons needs her space and privacy, which, when violated, can cause her great frustration and irritation.
When her life is balanced, however, Angela Simmons is both charming and attractive. She can be the life of a party, and enjoy performing before an audience. Angela loves displaying her wit and knowledge, which makes her attractive to others, especially the opposite sex. It should just be remembered that because she associates peace with the unobtrusive privacy of her world, intimacy is difficult for Angela Simmons. It is Simmons' challenge to avoid shutting out the love of others and keeping her from experiencing the true joy of friendship and close companionship.
With her abilities to learn, analyze, and seek out answers to life's important questions, Angela Simmons has the potential for enormous growth and success in life. By the time she reaches middle age, Angela will radiate refinement and wisdom. More...
Angela Simmons is full of energy, always on the go, fidgety, and quite hyperactive. Life is in a constant motion for her and she devours it powerfully.
She has great ability to put thoughts into action, and there is no wait once she sets her mind on something. Where others tend to think or dream, Angela already takes action while radiating energy, enthusiasm, and livelihood around.
Her physical stamina is strong, and she loves mental and physical exercise. Angela Simmons keep herself physically or mentally busy at all times, and she feels better spending time outdoors and eating natural foods.
Limited space is a major challenge for Angela, while exercise, proper diet, and rest are critical for her health. A good walk in the fresh air serves as an intellectual vehicle for her.
Tour Angela's menu and gain more insight into her personality traits, relationships, strengths and weaknesses, likes and dislikes, compatibility with you and with others, and much more.
During the day - Angela might find herself distracted at work, feeling a little awkward, and even out of place.
If too distracted, Simmons is accident prone today. She should avoid social events as much as possible.
An American actress, dancer, songwriter, co-creator of and singer in the metal band Wicked Wisdom, and businesswoman who appeared in over 20 films as Scream 2, Ali, The Matrix Reloaded, The Matrix Revolutions, and in the Madagascar series
Tom Peters is the co-author of ''In Search of Excellence'' and ''A Passion for Excellence''. He was the founder of the Tom Peters Group, five enterprises engaged in encouraging the competitive and management revolution in America; and the non-profit Palo Alto Center for Management Studies. He speaks to about 150 public and private sector organisations each year. He also writes a weekly syndicated newspaper column for Tribune Media Services and has authored more than 100 magazine and journal articles.
The Economist tagged him the Uber-guru; and Business Week''s take on his "unconventional views" led them to label him "business''s best friend and worst nightmare." In 2004 the Bloomsbury Press book ''Movers and Shakers'' reviewed the contributions of 125 business and management thinkers and practitioners, from Machiavelli and JP Morgan to Tom and Jack Welch.
In 2009 and 2007, Thinkers 50, the global ranking of management gurus, placed him among the list of most influential thinkers. In his brilliant presentations, Tom offers audiences the necessary tools for personal and business empowerment along with a host of ingenious problem solving methodologies.
Tom Peters is known for a very evocative, emotional, and dynamic speaking style. His speaking engagements have earned him a large following.
This time twelve months ago, we handed in our notice to our previous employer and became Celsium. The last year has been a mixed bag of emotions, with high points and low points, successes and failures, jubilation and numerous expletives. Especially expletives. Especially from Shelley.
A key learn for us was that just replicating what other relocation management companies are doing is not enough for a successful business model that supports organisations and HR departments fulfil their relocation programmes in the way they want. There are plenty of organisations out there churning out the same service offering year in, year out, with sales and service teams that seem to share the same DNA as zombies. You might think zombies are pretty cool, but they can't give the client what they really want - unless the client wants their face chewing off, that is.
From the early stages we thought long and hard about what potential clients actually want from a relocation service provider, carrying out market research and all the other tasks that go with that to make it worthwhile, and we now have a 360 service offering that can meet the requirements of even the most resource-strapped clients. We call it our ReloHub.
At the recent EuRA event in Malta, a number of partners commented that we actually have no direct competition in the UK market. That either makes us unique, or maybe just freaks. Either way, it's good to be different.
So we managed to pick up some clients along the way, which is good news, especially for the bank of mum and dad. Some of our clients are big. Actually, bloody massive. We're not talking about some tin-pot companies located in the arse end of Birmingham; we're talking global manufacturing giants, industry leaders and household names. Client confidentiality precludes us from divulging their names, but think soft beverages, packaging and engineering.
For one of these companies, we moved a senior management team into London and helped their President settle into her prestigious new home, providing ongoing, high-level support to her and her Family Office.
However, our biggest achievement is becoming the sole relocation provider for what is likely to be the world's largest trade and inward investment programme under one "roof". We can't say too much about it at this stage, unfortunately, as the official launch is not due until later this month, but we will make more details available as soon as we can. It is big.
Have we had setbacks? Yes, we have, and we're not afraid to mention the fact. Our biggest disaster started right at the start of our Celsium journey. We had engaged with a company moving 40 people from the UAE into London and this would have been our first client, funding the initial stages of our venture. The figures looked good, really good. But they pulled out of the move when they realised the company would have to pay tax in the UK. Yes, they hadn't factored this into their initial set-up calculations, so back to the drawing board they went. As far as we know, they are still there...
For us, it was one of those heavily expletive-laden moments as we realised our cash flow projection would be heavily impacted. But we got through this painful experience as stronger, more experienced individuals, and we're still here!
We have been overwhelmed by the well-wishers both from our personal lives and our business contacts. Our supply chain partners have been instrumental in motivating us and providing us with support and potential leads. Setting up a company by yourself can be an incredibly lonely business (oh, many thanks to Skype as well!), especially when you are a very small fish in a very big pond with some very big fish already in it. I know that sounds ridiculous as there were two of us in the early days, but still, you have these crazy moments when you can feel very isolated as a new start-up. Thank goodness for the fantastic Entrepreneurial Spark programme which has been instrumental in more ways than one.
But we grinned and we bore it and we have made some wonderful contacts and friends in the last year and would like to toast you all in thanks and in anticipation of many more years of the same to come.
As we head into our second year, we are brimming over (not literally, of course) with confidence, enthusiasm and excitement. We currently have not one, not four, but nine proposals out there, so we reckon we must be doing something right that extends beyond making a smashing cup of tea. We are conscious (which is in itself a good start) that we must not rest on our laurels and let complacency creep in through the door. Finally, we are grafters, not shafters, so we will continue to work hard to ensure we are providing not only great services but great value services to support our current and potential clients.