Key result
The 2012 WHF criteria for RHD echo screening increase specificity and reduce false positive rates.
Why the study?
The natural history of subclinical echocardiographically detected rheumatic heart disease is the most important research question before endorsing widespread screening.
What are the issues and criteria relevant to echocardiographic screening for rheumatic heart disease?
What are the issues and criteria relevant to echocardiographic screening for rheumatic heart disease?
The 2012 WHF criteria improve the specificity of echocardiographic screening for rheumatic heart disease, but understanding the natural history of subclinical disease is necessary before widespread screening can be endorsed.
Improves echo screening specificity for RHD; leaves open need for natural history data before endorsing widespread use.
The advent of portable echocardiography has led to screening for rheumatic heart disease (RHD) with high disease prevalence found in many countries. Data are presented from studies from India, Africa, and New Zealand. The natural history of subclinical echocardiographically detected RHD is the most important research question to be answered before more widespread screening is endorsed. The 2012 World Heart Federation (WHF) criteria for the echocardiographic diagnosis of RHD provide standardization of RHD diagnosis, increasing the specificity for definite RHD and raising the threshold for borderline RHD. Use of the criteria should reduce the false positive rate for minor echocardiographic changes due to physiological valvular regurgitation. This review highlights issues of screening for RHD that are of relevance to the cardiology community.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Saxena et al. (2013) conducted a review in Rheumatic heart disease (RHD). Echocardiographic screening was evaluated. Echocardiographic screening for rheumatic heart disease using the 2012 World Heart Federation criteria provides standardization, increases specificity, and reduces false positive rates.
Synapse has enriched 2 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: