Key result
Echocardiography detects moderate-to-severe LV dysfunction with ~84% sensitivity, outperforming exam and ECG.
Why the study?
The added value of routine echocardiography compared to clinical examination and ECG in detecting left ventricular dilatation and systolic dysfunction has received little attention.
Does two-dimensional echocardiography improve the detection of left ventricular dysfunction and dilatation compared to clinical examination and ECG in patients scheduled for cardiac MRI?
Observational (n=100)
Does two-dimensional echocardiography improve the detection of left ventricular dysfunction and dilatation compared to clinical examination and ECG in patients scheduled for cardiac MRI?
Absolute Event Rate: 84% vs 71%
Routine echocardiography significantly improves the diagnostic accuracy for detecting left ventricular dysfunction and dilatation over clinical examination and ECG alone.
Echocardiography may improve LV dysfunction detection over exam plus ECG in referred patients; leaves open whether routine use alters management or outcomes.
INTRODUCTION: The added value of routine echocardiography, in respect to clinical examination and ECG, has received little attention. We sought to evaluate the contribution of two-dimensional echocardiography, in respect to clinical examination and ECG, in detecting left ventricular (LV) dilatation and systolic dysfunction. METHOD: A group of 100 patients, scheduled for cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), was prospectively studied. RESULTS: Clinical examination identified moderate-to-severe LV dysfunction, defined as a LV ejection fraction (EF) < 45% at MRI, with a sensitivity of 62% and a specificity of 68%. After ECG, sensitivity and specificity slightly improved (71 and 70%, respectively). After the echocardiographic report, sensitivity reached 84% and specificity 90%. LV EF by echocardiography (routine studies) was closely related with that by MRI (r = 0.84). LV function was scored as undefined in 17% of patients after clinical examination, in 5% of patients after ECG and in no patient after echocardiography (P < 0.0001). Clinical examination identified patients with LV dilatation (LV end-diastolic volume > or = 110 ml/m2) with a poor sensitivity (33%) but a good specificity (88%). After ECG, sensitivity was 39% and specificity 87%; after echocardiography, sensitivity reached 53% and specificity 92%. CONCLUSION: Echocardiography provides information on LV function and dimensions that vastly exceeds that obtained by clinical examination and ECG. This study supports the use of echocardiography to improve patient diagnosis and management after history and physical examination.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rovai et al. (2008) conducted an observational in Left ventricular dysfunction (n=100). Echocardiography vs. Clinical examination and ECG was evaluated on Sensitivity for detecting moderate-to-severe LV dysfunction (LVEF < 45% at MRI). Echocardiography improved the sensitivity for detecting moderate-to-severe left ventricular dysfunction to 84% and specificity to 90%, compared to 71% and 70% with clinical examination and ECG.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: