Objective To determine the implications of applying guideline-recommended definitions of aortic stenosis to echocardiographic data captured in routine clinical care.
Methods Retrospective observational study of 213 174 patients who underwent transthoracic echocardiographic imaging within Allina Health between January 2013 and October 2017. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and accuracy of echocardiographic measures for severe aortic stenosis were determined relative to the documented interpretation of severe aortic stenosis.
Results Among 77 067 patients with complete assessment of the aortic valve, 1219 (1.6%) patients were categorised as having severe aortic stenosis by the echocardiographic reader. Relative to the documented interpretation, aortic valve area (AVA) as a measure of severe aortic stenosis had the high sensitivity (94.1%) but a low positive predictive value (37.5%). Aortic valve peak velocity and mean gradient were specific (>99%), but less sensitive (<70%). A measure incorporating peak velocity, mean gradient and dimensionless index (either by velocity time integral or peak velocity ratio) achieved a balance of sensitivity (92%) and specificity (99%) with little detriment in accuracy relative to peak velocity and mean gradient alone (98.9% vs 99.3%). Using all available data, the proportion of patients whose echocardiogram could be assessed for aortic stenosis was 79.8% as compared with 52.7% by documented interpretation alone.
Conclusion A measure that used dimensionless index in place of AVA addressed discrepancies between quantitative echocardiographic data and the documented interpretation of severe aortic stenosis. These findings highlight the importance of understanding the limitations of clinical data as it relates to quality improvement efforts and pragmatic research design.
- electronic medical records
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Contributors Conception and study design: SMB. Data collection: KF, KM. Data analysis and interpretation: SMB, KF, KM, PS, CES, MG, PS. Drafting the manuscript: SMB. Critical revision of the manuscript: SMB, KF, KM, PS, CES, MG, PS. Final approval of the version to be published: SMB, KF, KM, PS, CES, MG, PS.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests None declared.
Patient consent Not required.
Ethics approval Allina Health.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Data sharing statement Data from this observational study are not available for sharing.
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.