Key result
Audible S4 correlates with LV diameters and prior MI when identified by experienced examiners.
Why the study?
The clinical significance of an audible fourth heart sound (S4) and its relationship to cardiac disease and examiner experience was unclear.
Does the audibility of the fourth heart sound (S4) correlate with the presence of cardiac disease and examiner experience?
Cross-Sectional (n=51)
Blinded
Does the audibility of the fourth heart sound (S4) correlate with the presence of cardiac disease and examiner experience?
An audible fourth heart sound remains a specific indicator of cardiac disease when identified by experienced examiners, whereas less experienced clinicians often confuse it with a split first heart sound.
May support skilled auscultation for cardiac disease detection; leaves open prospective validation and generalizability.
• 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 S4was 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 S4or 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 S4present even in cases lacking a recordable S4and in normal subjects and were more apt to believe an S4present when splitting of S,was identified graphically. We conclude that an audible S4continues 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 S,with the S4, suggesting that training should be focused on means to improve this differentiation. (Arch Intern Med1987;147:721-726)
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
M. D. Jordan (1987) conducted a cross-sectional in Cardiac disease (n=51). Audibility of the fourth heart sound (S4) vs. Normal subjects was evaluated on Incidence of recordable S4. An audible fourth heart sound correlated with left ventricular diameters and history of myocardial infarction, providing specific evidence for cardiac disease when identified by experienced examiners.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: