User login
SAN FRANCISCO – Handheld ultrasound proved "vastly superior" to physical examination conducted by cardiologists for the evaluation of a variety of cardiovascular complaints in a head-to-head prospective trial.
All 250 study participants underwent a clinically indicated standard 2-D and Doppler transthoracic echocardiography exam. But first they received an initial clinical assessment with both a point-of-care, handheld ultrasound scan and a physical exam performed by randomly assigned cardiologists who had widely varying degrees of experience. The cardiologists’ physical exam took an average of 5 minutes, while the limited ultrasound evaluation performed with the commercially available VScan device took a mean of 8.2 minutes, Dr. Manish Mehta reported at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology.
Ultrasound had a far higher correct-diagnosis rate than did cardiologists’ physical exam for nearly all of the heart conditions the cardiologists encountered. For example, ultrasound correctly diagnosed moderate or severe mitral regurgitation as confirmed by standard echocardiography in 20 of 20 affected patients, compared with 12 of 20 diagnosed correctly as a result of the physical exam. Ultrasound was threefold more accurate than was physical exam in diagnosis of left ventricular dysfunction in the 54 affected patients. It was also significantly more accurate in the diagnosis of right ventricular dysfunction, tricuspid regurgitation, moderate or severe valve abnormalities, and a miscellaneous category comprising 107 patients with pleural, pericardial, aortic, or congenital heart disease.
In the other two diagnostic categories – pulmonary hypertension and elevated right atrial pressure – ultrasound outperformed physical exam, but not by a statistically significant margin, added Dr. Mehta of Oregon Health and Science University, Portland.
"Routine incorporation of a hand-carried ultrasound device into the physical exam facilitates early and accurate diagnosis of cardiac pathology, which can result in more efficient delivery of care and [can] potentially reduce cost," he concluded.
Dr. Mehta said he and his coinvestigators conducted this study because hand-carried ultrasound has not caught on in cardiology practice to date the way they feel it should. They wanted to provide further supporting evidence for its routine use.
The study was funded by GE Healthcare, which markets the VScan system. Dr. Mehta reported having no financial conflicts.
SAN FRANCISCO – Handheld ultrasound proved "vastly superior" to physical examination conducted by cardiologists for the evaluation of a variety of cardiovascular complaints in a head-to-head prospective trial.
All 250 study participants underwent a clinically indicated standard 2-D and Doppler transthoracic echocardiography exam. But first they received an initial clinical assessment with both a point-of-care, handheld ultrasound scan and a physical exam performed by randomly assigned cardiologists who had widely varying degrees of experience. The cardiologists’ physical exam took an average of 5 minutes, while the limited ultrasound evaluation performed with the commercially available VScan device took a mean of 8.2 minutes, Dr. Manish Mehta reported at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology.
Ultrasound had a far higher correct-diagnosis rate than did cardiologists’ physical exam for nearly all of the heart conditions the cardiologists encountered. For example, ultrasound correctly diagnosed moderate or severe mitral regurgitation as confirmed by standard echocardiography in 20 of 20 affected patients, compared with 12 of 20 diagnosed correctly as a result of the physical exam. Ultrasound was threefold more accurate than was physical exam in diagnosis of left ventricular dysfunction in the 54 affected patients. It was also significantly more accurate in the diagnosis of right ventricular dysfunction, tricuspid regurgitation, moderate or severe valve abnormalities, and a miscellaneous category comprising 107 patients with pleural, pericardial, aortic, or congenital heart disease.
In the other two diagnostic categories – pulmonary hypertension and elevated right atrial pressure – ultrasound outperformed physical exam, but not by a statistically significant margin, added Dr. Mehta of Oregon Health and Science University, Portland.
"Routine incorporation of a hand-carried ultrasound device into the physical exam facilitates early and accurate diagnosis of cardiac pathology, which can result in more efficient delivery of care and [can] potentially reduce cost," he concluded.
Dr. Mehta said he and his coinvestigators conducted this study because hand-carried ultrasound has not caught on in cardiology practice to date the way they feel it should. They wanted to provide further supporting evidence for its routine use.
The study was funded by GE Healthcare, which markets the VScan system. Dr. Mehta reported having no financial conflicts.
SAN FRANCISCO – Handheld ultrasound proved "vastly superior" to physical examination conducted by cardiologists for the evaluation of a variety of cardiovascular complaints in a head-to-head prospective trial.
All 250 study participants underwent a clinically indicated standard 2-D and Doppler transthoracic echocardiography exam. But first they received an initial clinical assessment with both a point-of-care, handheld ultrasound scan and a physical exam performed by randomly assigned cardiologists who had widely varying degrees of experience. The cardiologists’ physical exam took an average of 5 minutes, while the limited ultrasound evaluation performed with the commercially available VScan device took a mean of 8.2 minutes, Dr. Manish Mehta reported at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology.
Ultrasound had a far higher correct-diagnosis rate than did cardiologists’ physical exam for nearly all of the heart conditions the cardiologists encountered. For example, ultrasound correctly diagnosed moderate or severe mitral regurgitation as confirmed by standard echocardiography in 20 of 20 affected patients, compared with 12 of 20 diagnosed correctly as a result of the physical exam. Ultrasound was threefold more accurate than was physical exam in diagnosis of left ventricular dysfunction in the 54 affected patients. It was also significantly more accurate in the diagnosis of right ventricular dysfunction, tricuspid regurgitation, moderate or severe valve abnormalities, and a miscellaneous category comprising 107 patients with pleural, pericardial, aortic, or congenital heart disease.
In the other two diagnostic categories – pulmonary hypertension and elevated right atrial pressure – ultrasound outperformed physical exam, but not by a statistically significant margin, added Dr. Mehta of Oregon Health and Science University, Portland.
"Routine incorporation of a hand-carried ultrasound device into the physical exam facilitates early and accurate diagnosis of cardiac pathology, which can result in more efficient delivery of care and [can] potentially reduce cost," he concluded.
Dr. Mehta said he and his coinvestigators conducted this study because hand-carried ultrasound has not caught on in cardiology practice to date the way they feel it should. They wanted to provide further supporting evidence for its routine use.
The study was funded by GE Healthcare, which markets the VScan system. Dr. Mehta reported having no financial conflicts.
AT ACC 13
Major Finding: Handheld, point-of-care echocardiography proved far more accurate than did physical examination by cardiologists in the initial assessment of patients with a variety of cardiovascular conditions.
Data Source: A prospective head-to-head comparative study in which 250 cardiology inpatients and outpatients underwent a limited scan with a hand-carried ultrasound device as well as a physical exam by a cardiologist prior to a clinically indicated standard 2-D and Doppler transthoracic echo exam, which provided the definitive diagnosis.
Disclosures: The study was funded by GE Healthcare. The presenter reported having no financial conflicts.