Key result
A hand held echocardiographic device showed excellent agreement with standard platforms for diastolic parameters (ICCs 0.78-0.97) but significantly underestimated tricuspid regurgitation (25.5% vs 65.3%).
Why the study?
Does a hand held echocardiographic device with Doppler capabilities provide comparable haemodynamic measurements to standard echocardiography in consecutive patients?
Population
98 consecutive patients at a tertiary care centre
Comparison
Hand held echocardiographic device with Doppler… vs Standard echocardiography platform
Design
Cross-sectional, randomly imaged, Blinded comparison
Authors
Loading...
Handheld devices may aid diastolic assessment in select settings; leaves open validation for tricuspid regurgitation and pulmonary pressure accuracy.
Cross-Sectional (n=98)
Blinded
Randomly imaged
No
Does a hand held echocardiographic device with Doppler capabilities provide comparable haemodynamic measurements to standard echocardiography in consecutive patients?
Hand held echocardiographic devices with Doppler capabilities provide reliable evaluation of valvar disease and diastolic function, but have significant limitations in evaluating pulmonary pressures due to underdetection of tricuspid regurgitation.
Juan Quiles (2003) conducted a cross-sectional in Patients requiring echocardiography (n=98). Hand held echocardiographic device vs. Standard echocardiography platform was evaluated on Agreement of pulsed and continuous wave Doppler measurements. A hand held echocardiographic device showed excellent agreement with standard platforms for diastolic parameters (ICCs 0.78-0.97) but significantly underestimated tricuspid regurgitation (25.5% vs 65.3%).