Hand-held echocardiography: added value in clinical cardiological assessment

BACKGROUND: The ultrasonic industry has recently produced echocardiographic Hand Held Devices (miniaturized, compact and battery-equipped echocardiographic systems). Their potential usefulness has been successfully assessed in a wide range of clinical conditions. The aim of the study was to verify if the routine use of a basic model of echocardiographic Hand Held Device (HHD) could be an important diagnostic tool during outpatient cardiologic consulting or in non-cardiologic hospital sections. METHODS: 87 consecutive patients were included in this study; they underwent routine physical examination, resting ECG and echocardiographic evaluation using a basic model of HHD performed by trained echocardiographists; the cardiologist, whenever possible, formulated a diagnosis. The percentage of subjects in whom the findings were judged reasonably adequate for final diagnostic and therapeutic conclusions was used to quantify the "conclusiveness" of HHD evaluation. Successively, all patients underwent a second echocardiographic evaluation, by an examiner with similar echocardiographic experience, performed using a Standard Echo Device (SED). The agreement between the first and the second echocardiographic exam was also assessed. RESULTS: Mean examination time was 6.7 ± 1.5 min. using HHD vs. 13.6 ± 2.4 min. using SED. The echocardiographic examination performed using HHD was considered satisfactory in 74/87 patients (85.1% conclusiveness). Among the 74 patients for whom the examination was conclusive, the diagnosis was concordant with that obtained with the SED examination in 62 cases (83.8% agreement). CONCLUSION: HHD may generally allow a reliable cardiologic basic evaluation of outpatient or subjects admitted to non-cardiologic sections, more specifically in particular subgroups of patients, with a gain in terms of time, shortening patient waiting lists and reducing healthy costs

Hand-carried ultrasound performed at bedside in cardiology inpatient setting – a comparative study with comprehensive echocardiography

BACKGROUND: Hand-carried ultrasound (HCU) devices have been demonstrated to improve the diagnosis of cardiac diseases over physical examination, and have the potential to broaden the versatility in ultrasound application. The role of these devices in the assessment of hospitalized patients is not completely established. In this study we sought to perform a direct comparison between bedside evaluation using HCU and comprehensive echocardiography (CE), in cardiology inpatient setting. METHODS: We studied 44 consecutive patients (mean age 54 ± 18 years, 25 men) who underwent bedside echocardiography using HCU and CE. HCU was performed by a cardiologist with level-2 training in the performance and interpretation of echocardiography, using two-dimensional imaging, color Doppler, and simple calliper measurements. CE was performed by an experienced echocardiographer (level-3 training) and considered as the gold standard. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in cardiac chamber dimensions and left ventricular ejection fraction determined by the two techniques. The agreement between HCU and CE for the detection of segmental wall motion abnormalities was 83% (Kappa = 0.58). There was good agreement for detecting significant mitral valve regurgitation (Kappa = 0.85), aortic regurgitation (kappa = 0.89), and tricuspid regurgitation (Kappa = 0.74). A complete evaluation of patients with stenotic and prosthetic dysfunctional valves, as well as pulmonary hypertension, was not possible using HCU due to its technical limitations in determining hemodynamic parameters. CONCLUSION: Bedside evaluation using HCU is helpful for assessing cardiac chamber dimensions, left ventricular global and segmental function, and significant valvular regurgitation. However, it has limitations regarding hemodynamic assessment, an important issue in the cardiology inpatient setting

Use of ultrasound by emergency medical services: a review

Prehospital ultrasound has been deployed in certain areas of the USA and Europe. Physicians, emergency medical technicians, and flight nurses have utilized a variety of medical and trauma ultrasound assessments to impact patient care in the field. The goal of this review is to summarize the literature on emergency medical services (EMS) use of ultrasound to more clearly define the potential utility of this technology for prehospital providers

Use of ultrasound by emergency medical services: a review

Prehospital ultrasound has been deployed in certain areas of the USA and Europe. Physicians, emergency medical technicians, and flight nurses have utilized a variety of medical and trauma ultrasound assessments to impact patient care in the field. The goal of this review is to summarize the literature on emergency medical services (EMS) use of ultrasound to more clearly define the potential utility of this technology for prehospital providers

Improved cardiovascular diagnostic accuracy by pocket size imaging device in non-cardiologic outpatients: the NaUSiCa (Naples Ultrasound Stethoscope in Cardiology) study

Miniaturization has evolved in the creation of a pocket-size imaging device which can be utilized as an ultrasound stethoscope. This study assessed the additional diagnostic power of pocket size device by both experts operators and trainees in comparison with physical examination and its appropriateness of use in comparison with standard echo machine in a non-cardiologic population

Long term outcome in patients with silent versus symptomatic ischaemia during dobutamine stress echocardiography.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the long term prognosis of patients having silent versus symptomatic ischaemia during dobutamine stress echocardiography (DSE). DESIGN: Observational study. SETTING: Tertiary referral centre. PATIENTS: 931 patients who experienced stress induced myocardial ischaemia during DSE. RESULTS: Silent ischaemia was present in 643 of 931 patients (69%). The number of dysfunctional segments at rest (mean (SD) 9.6 (5.1) v 8.8 (5.0), p = 0.1) and of ischaemic segments (3.5 (2.2) v 3.8 (2.1), p = 0.2) was comparable in both groups. During a mean (SD) follow up of 5.5 (3.3) years, there were 169 (18%) cardiac deaths and 86 (9%) non-fatal infarctions. Multivariable Cox regression analysis showed age (hazard ratio (HR) 1.1, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02 to 1.05), previous myocardial infarction (HR 1.4, 95% CI 1.1 to 2.0), and number of ischaemic segments during the test (HR 2.0, 95% CI 1.0 to 3.7) as independent predictors of cardiac death and myocardial infarction. For every additional ischaemic segment there was a twofold increment in risk of late cardiac events. The annual cardiac death or myocardial infarction rate was 3.0% in patients with symptomatic ischaemia and 4.6% in patients with silent ischaemia (p < 0.01). Silent induced ischaemia was an independent predictor of cardiac death and myocardial infarction (HR 1.7, 95% CI 1.1 to 2.0). During follow up symptomatic patients were treated more often with cardioprotective therapy (p < 0.01) and coronary revascularisation (145 of 288 (50%) v 174 of 643 (27%), p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with silent ischaemia had a similar extent of myocardial ischaemia during DSE compared to patients with symptomatic ischaemia but received less cardioprotective treatment and coronary revascularisation and experienced a higher cardiac event rate