Key result
Hand-held ultrasound correctly identified abnormal left ventricular function in 96% of patients compared to only 35% by physical examination.
Effect estimate: 61% difference (95% CI 45-77)
Absolute Event Rate: 96% vs 35%
p-value: p=<0.0001
This editorial argues for replacing traditional physical examination with hand-held ultrasound at the point of care for evaluating patients with cardiovascular disease.
Attempts at using physical examination (PE) go back centuries, with inspection, palpation, and percussion being the mainstay of this approach until 2 centuries ago when the stethoscope was invented and auscultation became probably the most important element of PE for patients with known or suspected cardiovascular disease (CVD). Despite its several limitations, PE is still used, sometimes as the only means, of evaluating and following patients with CVD. In this paper I shall argue for the substitution of this inaccurate and archaic approach by direct visualization of the heart using a hand-held ultrasound (HHU) device. I am not in any way suggesting the substitution of a comprehensive echocardiographic examination by an expert sonographer/echocardiographer by HHU in patients with significant CVD. Instead, I am arguing for the replacement of PE for evaluation of the heart at the point of care as well as at the bedside, simply because HHU is more accurate and provides more meaningful information.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sanjiv Kaul (2014) conducted a review in Suspected cardiovascular disease (n=250). Hand-held ultrasound (HHU) vs. Physical examination (PE) was evaluated on Correct diagnosis of abnormal left ventricular function (61% difference, 95% CI 45-77, p=<0.0001). Hand-held ultrasound correctly identified abnormal left ventricular function in 96% of patients compared to only 35% by physical examination.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: