Donate Help Contact The AHA Sign In Home
American Heart Association
Circulation
Search: search_blue_button Advanced Search
Circulation. 1975;52:420-425

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Chaitman, B. R.
Right arrow Articles by Rahimtoola, S. H.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Chaitman, B. R.
Right arrow Articles by Rahimtoola, S. H.

Circulation, Vol 52, 420-425, Copyright © 1975 by American Heart Association


ARTICLES

Objective and subjective analysis of left ventricular angiograms

BR Chaitman, H DeMots, JD Bristow, J Rosch and SH Rahimtoola

In order to determine the reproducibility of analyses of left ventriculograms, 35 cineangiograms were evaluated by four observers, two using standard quantitative techniques to determine ventricular volumes and a newly devised quantitative system to evaluate wall motion and two others using only visual inspection of the angiograms. Objective analysis repeated by the same observer correlated well for end-diastolic and end-systolic volumes and ejection fraction (r = .98, .99, respectively) and only one of 105 (1%) wall segments were identified differently. Variability in assessments increased when comparisons were made with a second objective observer. Correlation coefficients for the three volumetric parameters were .93, .98, and .95 and there was disagreement in the assessment of 8% of wall segments. Wide variability was present between an objective and two subjective observers in analyses of end-diastolic volumes (r = .63, .64). Regional wall motion was assessed differently in 19% and 27% of segments, respectively. Though the correlation of objectively and subjectively determined ejection fractions was much better than the correlation for volume (r = .92, .84), it was not as good as the correlation between two objective observers. Occasional errors of clinical significance occurred. We conclude that subjective analysis has a significant error rate and that reproducibility and accuracy of analysis of left ventriculograms require objective analysis.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
HeartHome page
C. H Manisty and D. P Francis
Ejection fraction: a measure of desperation?
Heart, April 1, 2008; 94(4): 400 - 401.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
JAMAHome page
S. H. Rahimtoola, G. L. Grunkemeier, J. F. Teply, L. E. Lambert, D. R. Thomas, Y.-F. Suen, and A. Starr
Changes in Coronary Bypass Surgery Leading to Improved Survival
JAMA, October 23, 1981; 246(17): 1912 - 1916.
[Abstract] [PDF]