Key result
Echocardiography showed higher sensitivity (81% vs 56%) and specificity (75% vs 56%) than invasive pressure-based measurements for diagnosing effusive-constrictive pericarditis.
Why the study?
Does echocardiography improve diagnostic accuracy for effusive-constrictive pericarditis compared to traditional pressure-based measurements in patients with tuberculous pericardial effusions?
Cross-Sectional (n=32)
Does echocardiography improve diagnostic accuracy for effusive-constrictive pericarditis compared to traditional pressure-based measurements in patients with tuberculous pericardial effusions?
Echocardiography demonstrates superior diagnostic performance compared to traditional invasive pressure measurements for identifying effusive-constrictive pericarditis in patients with tuberculous pericardial effusions.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Echocardiography may improve ECP diagnosis over invasive pressures; challenges consensus but leaves open need for validation.
BACKGROUND: Effusive-constrictive pericarditis (ECP) is traditionally diagnosed by using the expensive and invasive technique of direct pressure measurements in the pericardial space and the right atrium. The aim of this study was to assess the diagnostic role of echocardiography in tuberculous ECP. METHODS: Intrapericardial and right atrial pressures were measured pre- and post-pericardiocentesis, and right ventricular and left ventricular pressures were measured post-pericardiocentesis in patients with tuberculous pericardial effusions. Echocardiography was performed post-pericardiocentesis. Traditional, pressure-based diagnostic criteria were compared with post-pericardiocentesis systolic discordance and echocardiographic evidence of constriction. RESULTS: Thirty-two patients with tuberculous pericardial disease were included. Sixteen had ventricular discordance (invasively measured), 16 had ECP as measured by intrapericardial and right atrial invasive pressure measurements and 17 had ECP determined echocardiographically. The sensitivity and specificity of pressure-guided measurements (compared with discordance) for the diagnosis of ECP were both 56%. The positive and negative predictive values were both 56%. The sensitivity of echocardiography (compared with discordance) for the diagnosis of ECP was 81% and the specificity 75%, while the positive and the negative predictive values were 76% and 80%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Echocardiography shows a better diagnostic performance than invasive, pressure-based measurements for the diagnosis of ECP when both these techniques are compared with the gold standard of invasively measured systolic discordance.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bijl et al. (2016) conducted a cross-sectional in Tuberculous pericardial effusions (n=32). Echocardiography vs. Invasive pressure-based measurements was evaluated on Sensitivity for the diagnosis of ECP compared with invasively measured systolic discordance. Echocardiography showed higher sensitivity (81% vs 56%) and specificity (75% vs 56%) than invasive pressure-based measurements for diagnosing effusive-constrictive pericarditis.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: