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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ruddox, Vidar, Norum, Ingvild Billehaug, Stokke, Thomas Muri, Edvardsen, Thor, Otterstad, Jan Erik
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