CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

科学研究

科研文章

荐读文献

EXCELling in Left Main Intervention Safety and efficacy of the bioabsorbable polymer everolimus-eluting stent versus durable polymer drug-eluting stents in high-risk patients undergoing PCI: TWILIGHT-SYNERGY Patterns of calcification in coronary artery disease. A statistical analysis of intravascular ultrasound and coronary angiography in 1155 lesions Extracellular Myocardial Volume in Patients With Aortic Stenosis Higher neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) increases the risk of suboptimal platelet inhibition and major cardiovascular ischemic events among ACS patients receiving dual antiplatelet therapy with ticagrelor Randomized trial of simple versus complex drug-eluting stenting for bifurcation lesions: the British Bifurcation Coronary Study: old, new, and evolving strategies Short Length of Stay After Elective Transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Is Not Associated With Increased Early or Late Readmission Risk Comprehensive Investigation of Circulating Biomarkers and their Causal Role in Atherosclerosis-related Risk Factors and Clinical Events 2019 AHA/ACC Clinical Performance and Quality Measures for Adults With High Blood Pressure: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Performance Measures Pulmonary artery denervation for treatment of a patient with pulmonary hypertension secondary to left heart disease

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).