CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

科学研究

科研文章

荐读文献

Percutaneous Coronary Intervention vs Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in Patients With Left Main Coronary Artery Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Two-year outcomes following unprotected left main stenting with first vs new-generation drug-eluting stents: the FINE registry. EuroIntervention. Discrepancies in Measurement of the Thoracic Aorta: JACC Review Topic of the Week Successful bailout stenting strategy against lethal coronary dissection involving left main bifurcation Management of left main disease: an update Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in Patients With Left Main and Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease: Do We Have the Evidence? Impact of epicardial adipose tissue on cardiovascular haemodynamics, metabolic profile, and prognosis in heart failure P2Y12 Inhibitor Monotherapy with Clopidogrel Versus Ticagrelor in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Health Status After Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Low-Risk Patients With Aortic Stenosis Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement During Pregnancy

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).