CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

科学研究

Abstract

Recommended Article

Appropriate Use Criteria and Health Status Outcomes Following Chronic Total Occlusion Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Insights From the OPEN-CTO Registry Relation of prior statin and anti-hypertensive use to severity of disease among patients hospitalized with COVID-19: Findings from the American Heart Association’s COVID-19 Cardiovascular Disease Registry Pharmacotherapy in the Management of Anxiety and Pain During Acute Coronary Syndromes and the Risk of Developing Symptoms of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Long-Term Prognostic Implications of Previous Silent Myocardial Infarction in Patients Presenting With Acute Myocardial Infarction Selection of stenting approach for coronary bifurcation lesions A Test in Context: E/A and E/e' to Assess Diastolic Dysfunction and LV Filling Pressure Percutaneous coronary intervention for coronary bifurcation disease: 11th consensus document from the European Bifurcation Club The Prognostic Significance of Periprocedural Infarction in the Era of Potent Antithrombotic Therapy: The PRAGUE-18 Substudy

Original Research2019 Aug 6. doi: 10.7326/M19-1337.

JOURNAL:Ann Intern Med. Article Link

Comparative Accuracy of Focused Cardiac Ultrasonography and Clinical Examination for Left Ventricular Dysfunction and Valvular Heart Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Marbach JA, Almufleh A, Di Santo P et al. Keywords: cardiac ultrasonography; valvular heart disease

ABSTRACT


BACKGROUND - Incorporating focused cardiac ultrasonography (FoCUS) into clinical examination could improve the diagnostic yield of bedside patient evaluation.

 

PURPOSE - To compare the accuracy of FoCUS-assisted clinical assessment versus clinical assessment alone for diagnosing left ventricular dysfunction or valvular disease in adults having cardiovascular evaluation.

 

DATA SOURCES - English-language searches of MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science from 1 January 1990 to 23 May 2019 and review of reference citations.

 

STUDY SELECTION - Eligible studies were done in patients having cardiovascular evaluation; compared FoCUS-assisted clinical assessment versus clinical assessment alone for the diagnosis of left ventricular systolic dysfunction, aortic or mitral valve disease, or pericardial effusion; and used transthoracic echocardiography as the reference standard.

 

DATA EXTRACTION - Three study investigators independently abstracted data and assessed study quality.

 

DATA SYNTHESIS - Nine studies were included in the meta-analysis. The sensitivity of clinical assessment for diagnosing left ventricular dysfunction (left ventricular ejection fraction <50%) was 43% (95% CI, 33% to 54%), whereas that of FoCUS-assisted examination was 84% (CI, 74% to 91%). The specificity of clinical assessment was 81% (CI, 65% to 90%), and that of FoCUS-assisted examination was 89% (CI, 85% to 91%). The sensitivities of clinical assessment and FoCUS-assisted examination for diagnosing aortic or mitral valve disease (of at least moderate severity) were 46% (CI, 35% to 58%) and 71% (CI, 63% to 79%), respectively. Both the clinical assessment and the FoCUS-assisted examination had a specificity of 94% (CI, 91% to 96%).

 

LIMITATION - Evidence was scant, persons doing ultrasonography had variable skill levels, and most studies had unclear or high risk of bias.

 

CONCLUSION - Clinical examination assisted by FoCUS has greater sensitivity, but not greater specificity, than clinical assessment alone for identifying left ventricular dysfunction and aortic or mitral valve disease; FoCUS-assisted examination may help rule out cardiovascular pathology in some patients, but it may not be sufficient for definitive confirmation of cardiovascular disease suspected on physical examination.

 

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE - None. (PROSPERO: CRD42019124318).