Reasons for disagreement between screening and standard echocardiography in primary care: data from the PROVAR + study : Disagreement between screening and standard echo.

We aimed to evaluate the reasons for disagreement between screening echocardiography (echo), acquired by nonexperts, and standard echo in the Brazilian primary care (PC). Over 20 months, 22 PC workers were trained on simplified handheld (GE VSCAN) echo protocols. Screening groups, consisting of patients aged 17-20, 35-40 and 60-65 years, and patients referred for clinical indications underwent focused echo. Studies were remotelyinterpreted in US and Brazil, and those diagnosed with major or severe HD were referred for standard echoperformed by an expert. Major HD was defined as moderate to severe valve disease, ventriculardysfunction/hypertrophy, pericardial effusion or wall-motion abnormalities. A random sample of exams wasselected for evaluation of variables accounting for disagreement. A sample of 768 patients was analyzed, 651(85%) in the referred group. Quality issues were reported in 5.8%, and the random Kappa for major HD between screening and standard echo was 0.51. The most frequent reasons for disagreement were: overestimation of mitral regurgitation (MR) (17.9%, N=138), left ventricular (LV) dysfunction (15.7%, N=121), aortic regurgitation (AR) (15.2%, N=117), LV hypertrophy (13.5%, N=104) and tricuspid regurgitation (12.7%, N=98). Misdiagnosis of mitral and aortic morphological abnormalities was observed in 12.4% and 3.0%, and underestimation of AR and MR occurred in 4.6% and 11.1%. Among 257 patients with suspected mild/moderate MR, 129 were reclassified to normal. In conclusion, although screening echo with task-shifting in PC is a promising tool in low-income areas, estimation of valve regurgitation and LV function and size account for considerable disagreement with standard exams.

The Global Impact of Rheumatic Heart Disease.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Rheumatic heart disease (RHD) is a neglected disease of poverty, which presents challenges for patients, communities, and health systems. These effects are magnified in low resource countries, which bear the highest disease burden. When considering the impact of RHD, it is imperative that we widen our lens in order to better understand how RHD impacts the over 40 million people currently living with this preventable condition and their communities. We aimed to perform an updated literature review on the global impact of RHD, examining a broad range of aspects from disease burden to impact on healthcare system to socioeconomic implications. RECENT FINDINGS: RHD accounts for 1.6% of all cardiovascular deaths, resulting in 306,000 deaths yearly, with a much higher contribution in low- and middle-income countries, where 82% of the deaths occurred in 2015. RHD can result in severe health adverse outcomes, markedly heart failure, arrhythmias, stroke and embolisms, and ultimately premature death. Thus, preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic interventions are required, although insufficiently available in undersourced settings. As examples, anticoagulation management is poor in endemic regions - and novel oral anticoagulants cannot be recommended - and less than 15% of those in need have access to interventional procedures and valve replacement in Africa. RHD global impact remains high and unequally distributed, with a marked impact on lower resourced populations. This preventable disease negatively affects not only patients, but also the societies and health systems within which they live, presenting broad challenges and high costs along the pathway of prevention, diagnosis, and management.