Search

Background: The effectiveness trial "Stress echo (SE) 2020" evaluates novel applications of SE in and beyond coronary artery disease. The core protocol also includes 4-site simplified scan of B-lines by lung ultrasound, useful to assess pulmonary congestion., Purpose: To provide web-based upstream quality control and harmonization of B-lines reading criteria., Methods: 60 readers (all previously accredited for regional wall motion, 53 B-lines naive) from 52 centers of 16 countries of SE 2020 network read a set of 20 lung ultrasound video-clips selected by the Pisa lab serving as reference standard, after taking an obligatory web-based learning 2-h module ( http://se2020.altervista.org ). Each test clip was scored for B-lines from 0 (black lung, A-lines, no B-lines) to 10 (white lung, coalescing B-lines). The diagnostic gold standard was the concordant assessment of two experienced readers of the Pisa lab. The answer of the reader was considered correct if concordant with reference standard reading ±1 (for instance, reference standard reading of 5 B-lines; correct answer 4, 5, or 6). The a priori determined pass threshold was 18/20 (≥ 90%) with R value (intra-class correlation coefficient) between reference standard and recruiting center) > 0.90. Inter-observer agreement was assessed with intra-class correlation coefficient statistics., Results: All 60 readers were successfully accredited: 26 (43%) on first, 24 (40%) on second, and 10 (17%) on third attempt. The average diagnostic accuracy of the 60 accredited readers was 95%, with R value of 0.95 compared to reference standard reading. The 53 B-lines naive scored similarly to the 7 B-lines expert on first attempt (90 versus 95%, p = NS). Compared to the step-1 of quality control for regional wall motion abnormalities, the mean reading time per attempt was shorter (17 ± 3 vs 29 ± 12 min, p < .01), the first attempt success rate was higher (43 vs 28%, p < 0.01), and the drop-out of readers smaller (0 vs 28%, p < .01)., Conclusions: Web-based learning is highly effective for teaching and harmonizing B-lines reading. Echocardiographers without previous experience with B-lines learn quickly.

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.