Cargando…
Focused cardiac ultrasound by unselected residents—the challenges
BACKGROUND: Focus Cardiac Ultrasound (FoCUS) performed by internal medicine residents on call with 2 h of training can provide a means for ruling out cardiac disease, but with poor sensitivity. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate diagnostic usefulness as well as diagnostic accuracy of F...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2017
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5336635/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28259149 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12880-017-0191-y |
_version_ | 1782512227371188224 |
---|---|
author | Ruddox, Vidar Norum, Ingvild Billehaug Stokke, Thomas Muri Edvardsen, Thor Otterstad, Jan Erik |
author_facet | Ruddox, Vidar Norum, Ingvild Billehaug Stokke, Thomas Muri Edvardsen, Thor Otterstad, Jan Erik |
author_sort | Ruddox, Vidar |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Focus Cardiac Ultrasound (FoCUS) performed by internal medicine residents on call with 2 h of training can provide a means for ruling out cardiac disease, but with poor sensitivity. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate diagnostic usefulness as well as diagnostic accuracy of FoCUS following 4 h of training. METHODS: All residents on call were given a 4-h training course with an additional one-hour training course after 6 months. They were asked to provide a pre- and post-FoCUS diagnosis, with the final diagnosis at discharge as reference. RESULTS: During a 7 month period 113 FoCUS examinations were reported; after 53 were excluded this left 60 for evaluation with a standard echocardiogram performed on average 11.5 h after FoCUS. Examinations were performed on the basis of chest pain and dyspnoea/edema. The best sensitivity was found in terms of the detection of reduced left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction (EF) (92%), LV dilatation (85%) and pericardial effusion (100%). High values were noted for negative predictive values, although false positives were seen. A kappa > 0.6 was observed for reduced LVEF, right ventricular area fraction and dilatation of LV and left atrium. In 48% of patients pre- and post-FoCUS diagnoses were identical and concordant with the final diagnosis. Importantly, in 30% examinations FoCUS correctly changed the pre-FoCUS diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: A FoCUS protocol with a 4-h training program gained clinical usefulness in one third of examinations. False positive findings represented the major challenge. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5336635 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2017 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-53366352017-03-07 Focused cardiac ultrasound by unselected residents—the challenges Ruddox, Vidar Norum, Ingvild Billehaug Stokke, Thomas Muri Edvardsen, Thor Otterstad, Jan Erik BMC Med Imaging Research Article BACKGROUND: Focus Cardiac Ultrasound (FoCUS) performed by internal medicine residents on call with 2 h of training can provide a means for ruling out cardiac disease, but with poor sensitivity. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate diagnostic usefulness as well as diagnostic accuracy of FoCUS following 4 h of training. METHODS: All residents on call were given a 4-h training course with an additional one-hour training course after 6 months. They were asked to provide a pre- and post-FoCUS diagnosis, with the final diagnosis at discharge as reference. RESULTS: During a 7 month period 113 FoCUS examinations were reported; after 53 were excluded this left 60 for evaluation with a standard echocardiogram performed on average 11.5 h after FoCUS. Examinations were performed on the basis of chest pain and dyspnoea/edema. The best sensitivity was found in terms of the detection of reduced left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction (EF) (92%), LV dilatation (85%) and pericardial effusion (100%). High values were noted for negative predictive values, although false positives were seen. A kappa > 0.6 was observed for reduced LVEF, right ventricular area fraction and dilatation of LV and left atrium. In 48% of patients pre- and post-FoCUS diagnoses were identical and concordant with the final diagnosis. Importantly, in 30% examinations FoCUS correctly changed the pre-FoCUS diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: A FoCUS protocol with a 4-h training program gained clinical usefulness in one third of examinations. False positive findings represented the major challenge. BioMed Central 2017-03-04 /pmc/articles/PMC5336635/ /pubmed/28259149 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12880-017-0191-y Text en © The Author(s). 2017 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Ruddox, Vidar Norum, Ingvild Billehaug Stokke, Thomas Muri Edvardsen, Thor Otterstad, Jan Erik Focused cardiac ultrasound by unselected residents—the challenges |
title | Focused cardiac ultrasound by unselected residents—the challenges |
title_full | Focused cardiac ultrasound by unselected residents—the challenges |
title_fullStr | Focused cardiac ultrasound by unselected residents—the challenges |
title_full_unstemmed | Focused cardiac ultrasound by unselected residents—the challenges |
title_short | Focused cardiac ultrasound by unselected residents—the challenges |
title_sort | focused cardiac ultrasound by unselected residents—the challenges |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5336635/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28259149 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12880-017-0191-y |
work_keys_str_mv | AT ruddoxvidar focusedcardiacultrasoundbyunselectedresidentsthechallenges AT norumingvildbillehaug focusedcardiacultrasoundbyunselectedresidentsthechallenges AT stokkethomasmuri focusedcardiacultrasoundbyunselectedresidentsthechallenges AT edvardsenthor focusedcardiacultrasoundbyunselectedresidentsthechallenges AT otterstadjanerik focusedcardiacultrasoundbyunselectedresidentsthechallenges |