Key result
Physical examination findings for severe aortic stenosis, such as an absent second sound or parvus et tardus pulse, demonstrated high specificity (>95%) but low sensitivity (<50%).
Why the study?
Does physical examination accurately identify severe aortic stenosis compared to echocardiography in patients evaluated for the condition?
Population
100 patients evaluated for aortic stenosis
Comparison
Physical examination vs Echocardiographic evaluation (reference standard)
Design
Cross-sectional, Independent evaluation by two cardiologists before…
Authors
Loading...
Physical exam signs should not replace echocardiography to exclude severe AS; leaves open validation of clinical scores in referred patients.
Cross-Sectional (n=100)
Does physical examination accurately identify severe aortic stenosis compared to echocardiography in patients evaluated for the condition?
Physical examination signs for severe aortic stenosis have low sensitivity but high specificity, and a simple clinical score can help correctly identify these patients.
Parras et al. (2015) conducted a cross-sectional in Aortic stenosis (n=100). Physical examination vs. Echocardiography was evaluated on Diagnostic yield (sensitivity and specificity) of physical examination signs for severe aortic stenosis. Physical examination findings for severe aortic stenosis, such as an absent second sound or parvus et tardus pulse, demonstrated high specificity (>95%) but low sensitivity (<50%).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: