CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

科学研究

科研文章

荐读文献

Myocardial Blood Flow and Coronary Flow Reserve During 3 Years Following Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffold Versus Metallic Drug-Eluting Stent Implantation: The VANISH Trial Diagnostic accuracy of intracoronary optical coherence tomography-derived fractional flow reserve for assessment of coronary stenosis severity Comparison of Coronary Computed Tomography Angiography, Fractional Flow Reserve, and Perfusion Imaging for Ischemia Diagnosis Pulmonary Hypertension in Heart Failure: Pathophysiology, Pathobiology, and Emerging Clinical Perspectives Coronary Artery Intraplaque Microvessels by Optical Coherence Tomography Correlate With Vulnerable Plaque and Predict Clinical Outcomes in Patients With Ischemic Angina Joint consensus on the use of OCT in coronary bifurcation lesions by the European and Japanese bifurcation clubs Local Low Shear Stress and Endothelial Dysfunction in Patients With Nonobstructive Coronary Atherosclerosis Left ventricular remodelling and changes in functional measurements in patients undergoing transcatheter vs surgical aortic valve replacement: a head-to-head comparison T and small protrusion (TAP) vs double kissing crush technique: Insights from in-vitro models Atrial Fibrillation: JACC Council Perspectives

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).