Key result
Pocket-sized echocardiography demonstrated high sensitivity (87.5% in hospital, 88% in school cohorts) and specificity (93.8% and 68.4%, respectively) compared to standard echocardiography.
Why the study?
Standard transthoracic echocardiography has limitations in emergent and community-based situations, while pocket-sized ultrasound has emerged as an influential advancement.
Does pocket-sized echocardiography provide comparable diagnostic accuracy to standard echocardiography for screening structural heart disease in children?
Cross-Sectional (n=216)
Yes
Does pocket-sized echocardiography provide comparable diagnostic accuracy to standard echocardiography for screening structural heart disease in children?
Pocket-sized echocardiography demonstrates good diagnostic accuracy and significant cost savings when used by experienced operators for screening structural heart disease in school-aged children.
May facilitate cost-effective pediatric screening; leaves open prospective validation versus standard echocardiography.
BACKGROUND: The standard transthoracic echocardiography has some limitations in emergent and community-based situations. The emergence of pocket-sized ultrasound has led to influential advancements. METHODS: In this prospective study, in the hospital-based phase, children with suspected structural heart diseases were enrolled. In the school-based phase, healthy children were randomly selected from six schools. All individuals were examined by experienced operators using both the standard and the pocket-sized echocardiography. RESULTS: A total of 73 individuals with a mean age of 9.9 ± 3.2 years in the hospital-based cohort and 143 individuals with a mean age of 12.8 ± 2.9 years in the school-based cohort were examined. The agreements between the standard and the pocket-sized echocardiography were good or excellent for major CHDs in both cohorts (κ statistics > 0.61). Among valvular pathologies, agreements for tricuspid and pulmonary valves' regurgitation were moderate among school-based cohorts (0.56 [95% confidence interval 0.12-1] and 0.6 [95% confidence interval 0.28-0.91], respectively). The agreements for tricuspid and pulmonary valves' regurgitation were excellent (>0.9) among hospital-based population. Other values for valvular findings were good or excellent. The overall sensitivity and specificity were 87.5% (95% confidence interval 47.3-99.7) and 93.8% (95% confidence interval 85-98.3) among the hospital-based individuals, respectively, and those were 88% (95% confidence interval 77.8-94.7) and 68.4% (95% confidence interval 56.7-78.6) among the school-based individuals, respectively. The cost of examination was reduced by approximately 70% for an individual using the pocket-sized device. CONCLUSIONS: When interpreted by experienced operators, the pocket-sized echocardiography can be used as screening tool among school-aged population.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tabib et al. (2020) conducted a cross-sectional in Structural heart disease (n=216). Pocket-sized echocardiography vs. Standard transthoracic echocardiography was evaluated on Diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity and specificity) and agreement. Pocket-sized echocardiography demonstrated high sensitivity (87.5% in hospital, 88% in school cohorts) and specificity (93.8% and 68.4%, respectively) compared to standard echocardiography.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: