Home > Riviste > Minerva Cardioangiologica > Fascicoli precedenti > Articles online first > Minerva Cardioangiologica 2020 Jul 10

ULTIMO FASCICOLO
 

JOURNAL TOOLS

eTOC
Per abbonarsi
Sottometti un articolo
Segnala alla tua biblioteca
 

ARTICLE TOOLS

Publication history
Estratti
Permessi
Per citare questo articolo

 

 

Minerva Cardioangiologica 2020 Jul 10

DOI: 10.23736/S0026-4725.20.05278-0

Copyright © 2020 EDIZIONI MINERVA MEDICA

lingua: Inglese

Diagnosis of type 2 Brugada pattern: insights from a pilot survey

Pasquale CREA 1 , Luigi RIVETTI 2, Roberto BITTO 1, Angela NICOTERA 3, Luca ZAPPIA 1, Alessandro CARACCIOLO 1, Renato SCALISE 1, Armando SALITO 1, Paolo MAZZONE 1, Nicolò PELLEGRINO 1, Bruna CREA 4, Giuseppe DATTILO 1, Francesco LUZZA 1, Giuseppe ORETO 1

1 Cardiology Unit, Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University Hospital of Messina, Messina, Italy; 2 Department of Cardiology, “S. Maria dei Battuti” Hospital, AULSS 2 Veneto, Conegliano, Venice, Italy, 3 Cardiology Unit, A.O. Papardo, Messina, Italy, 4 Internal Medicine, San Luigi Gonzaga Hospital, University of Turin, Orbassano, Turin, Italy


PDF


BACKGROUND: Differentiation of Type 2 Brugada Pattern (BP) from incomplete right bundle branch block or normal rSr’ pattern can be insidious. The aim of this study was to assess inter-observer and intra-observer agreement in the diagnosis of type 2 BP in a cohort of cardiologists with different skills.
METHODS: We collected 14 ECGs with a positive terminal deflection of the QRS complex in lead V1 and V2 at the 4th intercostal space. We proposed these ECGs, specifying to use 2012 Consensus conference criteria for diagnosis of type 2 BP, to 42 participants: 14 arrhythmologists, 14 general cardiologists and 14 electrophysiology (EP) fellows. The same 14 ECGs, with a different order, were proposed fifteen days later to the same cohort to assess intra-observer variability. Authors analyzed all 14 ECGs in order to assess whether or not 2012 Consensus Conference criteria for BP were fulfilled. All patients underwent provocative test with IC antiarrhythmics drugs (flecainide) in order to exclude or confirm the diagnosis of Brugada Syndrome (BrS).
RESULTS: Slight inter-observer agreement (Fleiss K<0.20) in the diagnosis of type 2 BP was observed in all three categories of cardiologists. Considering five operators per class, intra-observer agreement is variable (k ranging from 0,000 to 0,857), with a slight superiority of arrhytmologists (k minimum value 0,276; k maximum value 0,857).
CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated, for the first time, a low inter-observer agreement in diagnosis of type 2 BP in categories of cardiologists with different abilities. Reproducibility of type 2 BP diagnosis (intra-observer agreement) is poor, even among experts. These findings highlight the difficulties in analysis of ECG with BrS suspicion and, therefore, underscore the key role of clinical and anamnestic data.


KEY WORDS: Brugada syndrome; Type 2 Brugada; Agreement; Intra-observer; Inter-observer

inizio pagina