Key result
FoCUS improves sensitivity for diagnosing LV dysfunction to ~84% versus clinical assessment alone.
Why the study?
Incorporating focused cardiac ultrasonography into clinical examination could improve bedside diagnostic yield, but its accuracy compared to clinical assessment alone needed evaluation.
Does focused cardiac ultrasonography (FoCUS)-assisted clinical assessment improve diagnostic accuracy for left ventricular dysfunction and valvular disease compared to clinical assessment alone in adults having cardiovascular evaluation?
Does focused cardiac ultrasonography (FoCUS)-assisted clinical assessment improve diagnostic accuracy for left ventricular dysfunction and valvular disease compared to clinical assessment alone in adults having cardiovascular evaluation?
FoCUS-assisted clinical examination significantly improves sensitivity for detecting left ventricular dysfunction and valvular disease compared to clinical assessment alone, though specificity is similar.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Supports incorporating FoCUS into cardiovascular exams to boost detection of LV dysfunction and valvular disease; extends prior diagnostic accuracy evidence.
Marbach et al. (2019) studied this question. FoCUS-assisted clinical examination had higher sensitivity than clinical assessment alone for diagnosing left ventricular dysfunction (84% vs 43%) and valvular heart disease (71% vs 46%).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: