Subsequently, during the examination performed with the use of the stationary echocardiograph, the 3-D measurement of LVEF was recorded. In each case, the four-chamber apical view was obtained, and LVEF was calculated with LVivo software. One hundred twelve patients admitted to the cardiology department underwent assessment performed with an HUD. The aim of this study was to assess the accuracy of an algorithm for automated measurement of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) available on handheld ultrasound devices (HUDs). This study provides a strong rationale for considering HUD as an auxiliary tool to physical examination in secondary care, to aid clinical decision making when considering referral for TTE. A cautious, supervised approach should be implemented when imaging is performed by inexperienced users. Experienced operators are able to accurately diagnose cardiac disease using HUD. This meta-analysis is the first to establish HUD as a powerful modality for predicting LV size and function. The diagnostic OR for LVEF (moderate/severe), LV dilatation and WMA in an experienced hand was 276 (95% CI 58 to 1320), 225 (95% CI 87 to 578) and 90 (95% CI 31 to 265), respectively, compared with 41 (95% CI 18 to 94), 45 (95% CI 16 to 123) and 28 (95% CI 20 to 41), respectively, for inexperienced users. There was a significant difference in the diagnostic accuracy between experienced and inexperienced users in LV dilatation, LVEF (moderate/severe) and WMA. Non-experienced operators are able to detect cardiac abnormalities with reasonable sensitivity and specificity. Experienced operators could predict reduced LV ejection fraction (LVEF), wall motion abnormality (WMA), LV dilatation and LV hypertrophy with pooled sensitivities of 88%, 85%, 89% and 85%, respectively, and pooled specificities of 96%, 95%, 98% and 91%, respectively. Thirty-three studies with 6062 participants were included in the meta-analysis. Pooled sensitivities and specificities, and summary receiver operating characteristic curves were used to determine the diagnostic ability of HUD and evaluate the impact of operator experience on test accuracy. Diagnostic studies using HUD and TTE imaging to determine LV dysfunction were included. MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched in October 2020. This meta-analysis evaluates the diagnostic ability of HUD compared with transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) and assesses the importance of operator experience. Handheld ultrasound devices (HUD) has diagnostic value in the assessment of patients with suspected left ventricular (LV) dysfunction. The diagnostic value of such PSID in basic assessment of cardiac morphology and function as compared to standard echocardiography is very good. Personal mobile device-based PSID allows for performing bTTE. The agreement in detection of various pathologies between the bTTE and sTTE examination was very good (k = 0.62-0.97 p < 0.01). The linear measurements obtained during bTTE showed good to excellent correlation with sTTE results (r = 0.65-0.98 p < 0.001). Echocardiographic measurements were completed for both bTTE and sTTE in 98% of patients. In all patients, PSID imaging provided sufficient diagnostic image quality.
#ECHO CARDIOGRAPH FULL#
Within 18 h of bTTE all subjects underwent a standard TTE (sTTE) using a full sized echocardiograph by expert echocardiographer. All patients underwent bTTE performed by cardiologist with the use of personal mobile device-based PSID. The study population comprised 87 consecutive patients (58 men, mean age 61 ± 16 years), 53 of whom were admitted to intensive cardiac care unit and 34 patients, who were referred for transthoracic echocardiography from outpatient clinic. The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility and diagnostic value of brief transthoracic echocardiographic examination (bTTE) performed with the use of such equipment. A microUSB ultrasound probe, which can be connected to a personal mobile device constitutes a new class of diagnostic pocket-size imaging devices (PSID).
0 kommentar(er)
