Key result
Audible S4 correlates with cardiac disease markers and appears graphically in ~69% of subjects.
Why the study?
The clinical significance and audibility of the fourth heart sound (S4) and its differentiation from splitting of the first heart sound (S1) remain unclear.
Does the clinical audibility of a fourth heart sound (S4) correlate with objective graphical recordings and cardiac disease?
Cross-Sectional (n=51)
Blinded
Does the clinical audibility of a fourth heart sound (S4) correlate with objective graphical recordings and cardiac disease?
An audible fourth heart sound remains a specific indicator of cardiac disease when assessed by experienced examiners, whereas less experienced clinicians frequently confuse it with a split first heart sound.
Experienced examiners may use audible S4 to flag cardiac disease; cross-sectional data leaves open prospective validation of training effects.
To determine the meaning of an audible fourth heart sound (S4), 51 subjects (21 normal and 30 abnormal persons), aged between 38 and 74 years (mean, 55.4 years), were examined by nine "blinded" physicians (four cardiologists, five house staff officers). Audibility scores were compared with phonocardiographic, echocardiographic, and hemodynamic measurements. An S4 was recorded graphically in 35 (68.6%) of all 51 subjects and splitting of the first sound (S1), in 37 subjects (72.5%). The abnormal group did not differ significantly from the normal subjects in incidence of recordable S4 or splitting of S1. Audibility of S4, however, correlated with its recorded amplitude, size, and palpability of the presystolic apical impulse, left ventricular systolic and diastolic diameters, and history of myocardial infarction. Despite variation among examiners, house staff officers were likelier than cardiologists to believe an S4 present even in cases lacking a recordable S4 and in normal subjects and were more apt to believe an S4 present when splitting of S1 was identified graphically. We conclude that an audible S4 continues to provide evidence for cardiac disease, and that increasing examiner experience renders this finding fairly specific. Less experienced examiners are likelier to confuse splitting of S1 with the S4, suggesting that training should be focused on means to improve this differentiation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Marlon D. Jordan (1987) conducted a cross-sectional in Cardiac disease (n=51). Audible fourth heart sound (S4) vs. Normal subjects was evaluated on Incidence of recordable S4. An audible fourth heart sound (S4) was recorded graphically in 68.6% of subjects and its audibility correlated with cardiac disease markers, though less experienced examiners often confused it with a split S1.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: