Why the study?
Does clinical evaluation accurately identify left ventricular dilatation and systolic dysfunction in stable patients scheduled for cardiac MRI?
Does clinical evaluation accurately identify left ventricular dilatation and systolic dysfunction in stable patients scheduled for cardiac MRI?
Clinical history and physical examination provide excellent specificity but only fair sensitivity for detecting left ventricular dilatation and systolic dysfunction.
High specificity supports ruling in LV dilatation or dysfunction on exam; leaves open whether clinical signs can safely reduce cardiac MRI use.
BACKGROUND: The diagnostic process has become increasingly dependent on instrumental and laboratory investigation. AIM: To evaluate the accuracy of symptoms and signs in identifying left ventricular (LV) dilatation and/or systolic dysfunction. METHODS: A group of 100 patients in stable clinical condition and scheduled for cardiac magnetic resonance imaging was prospectively examined by two cardiologists, who were unaware of the individual patient's condition. Patients were interviewed and underwent physical examination. RESULTS: Several symptoms and signs were associated with LV dilatation and systolic dysfunction at univariate analysis. Using multiple logistic regression, a mitral systolic murmur, a laterally displaced LV impulse, orthopnoea and hepatomegaly were all independent predictors of LV dilatation (end-diastolic volume >or=110 ml/m(2)) (p<0.0001) and LV dysfunction (ejection fraction <45%) (p<0.0001). The combination of the above variables correctly identified 79% of patients with LV dilatation (sensitivity 51%, specificity 92%), and 82% of patients with LV dysfunction (sensitivity 68%, specificity 90%). Considering LV dilatation and dysfunction, 77% of patients were correctly identified after history alone (kappa=0.13), 84% after LV impulse examination (kappa=0.55) and 86% after cardiac auscultation (kappa=0.58). CONCLUSION: Symptoms and signs predict LV dilatation and/or dysfunction with fair sensitivity and excellent specificity.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rovai et al. (2007) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 3 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: