Can emergency physicians diagnose and correctly classify diastolic dysfunction using bedside echocardiography?

OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to determine if emergency physicians (EPs) can correctly perform a bedside diastology examination (DE) and correctly grade the level of diastolic function with minimal additional training in echocardiography beyond what is learned in residency. We hypothesize that EPs will be accurate at detecting and grading diastolic dysfunction (DD) when compared to a criterion standard interpretation by a cardiologist. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, observational study on a convenience sample of adult patients who presented to an urban emergency department with a chief concern of dyspnea. All patients had a bedside echocardiogram, including a DE, performed by an EP-sonographer who had 3 hours of didactic and hands-on echocardiography training with a cardiologist. The DE was interpreted as normal, grade 1 to 3 if DD was present, or indeterminate, all based on predefined criteria. This interpretation was compared to that of a cardiologist who was blinded to the EPs' interpretations. RESULTS: We enrolled 62 patients; 52% had DD. Using the cardiology interpretation as the criterion standard, the sensitivity and specificity of the EP-performed DE to identify clinically significant diastolic function were 92% (95% confidence interval [CI], 60-100) and 69% (95% CI, 50-83), respectively. Agreement between EPs and cardiology on grade of DD was assessed using κ and weighted κ: κ = 0.44 (95% CI, 0.29-0.59) and weighted κ = 0.52 (95% CI, 0.38-0.67). Overall, EPs rated 27% of DEs as indeterminate, compared with only 15% by cardiology. For DEs where both EPs and cardiology attempted an interpretation (indeterminates excluded) κ = 0.45 (95% CI, 0.26 to 0.65) and weighted κ = 0.54 (95% CI, 0.36-0.72). CONCLUSION: After limited diastology-specific training, EPs are able to accurately identify clinically significant DD. However, correct grading of DD, when compared to a cardiologist, was only moderate, at best. Our results suggest that further training is necessary for EPs to achieve expertise in grading DD.

Prosthesis-patient mismatch in bovine pericardial aortic valves: evaluation using 3 different modalities and associated medium-term outcomes.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) and its impact on survival after aortic valve replacement have not been clearly defined. Historically, the presence of PPM was identified from postoperative echocardiograms or preoperative manufacturer-provided charts, resulting in wide discrepancies. The 2009 American Society of Echocardiography (ASE) guidelines proposed an algorithmic approach to calculate PPM. This study compared PPM prevalence and its impact on survival using 3 modalities: (1) the ASE guidelines-suggested algorithm (ASE PPM); (2) the manufacturer-provided charts (M PPM); and (3) the echocardiographically measured, body surface area-indexed, effective orifice area (EOAi PPM) measurement. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 614 patients underwent aortic valve replacement with bovine pericardial valves from 2004 to 2009 and had normal preoperative systolic function. EOAi PPM was severe if EOAi was ≤ 0.60 cm(2)/m(2), moderate if EOAi was 0.60 to 0.85 cm(2)/m(2), and absent (none) if EOAi was ≥ 0.85 cm(2)/m(2). ASE PPM was severe in 22 (3.6%), moderate in 6 (1%), and absent (none) in 586 (95.4%). ASE PPM was similar to manufacturer-provided PPM (P=1.00). ASE PPM differed significantly from EOAi PPM (P<0.001), which identified severe mismatch in 170 (29.7%), moderate in 191 (33.4%), and absent (none) in 211 patients (36.9%). Irrespective of the PPM classification method, PPM did not adversely affect midterm survival (average follow-up, 4.1 ± 1.8 years; median, 3.9 years; range, 0.01-8 years). There were no reoperations for PPM. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with normal systolic function undergoing bovine pericardial aortic valve replacement, the prevalence of PPM using the algorithmic-ASE approach was low and correlated well with manufacturer-provided PPM. Independent of the method of PPM assessment, PPM was not associated with medium-term mortality.

Quantitative assessment of in-stent dimensions: a comparison of 64 and 16 detector multislice computed tomography to intravascular ultrasound.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the utility of multislice computed tomography (MSCT) technology to evaluate coronary stent luminal diameter. BACKGROUND: Stent metal induced "blooming" artifact makes quantitative coronary angiography by MSCT difficult. There is a paucity of data on the efficacy of using 64 and 16 detector MSCT in evaluating coronary stents. METHODS: We evaluated four commercially available bare metal and polymer coated drug eluting stents using 64 and 16 detector MSCT for the following: (1) Strut density in Hounsfield's Units (Hu) using a 2 mm MIP; (2) In-stent luminal diameter (ISLD) measured by MSCT compared to intravascular ultrasound (IVUS). RESULTS: Increased strut thickness did not correlate with greater strut density as measured in Hu (R(2) = 0.05, P = 0.29). The ISLD by 16 MSCT vs. IVUS is: Vision 1.63 +/- 0.58 mm vs. 2.8 +/- 0.0; Cypher 1.80 +/- 0.00 vs. 2.9 +/- 0.0; Taxus 1.87 +/- 0.58 vs. 2.9 +/- 0.0; Liberté 1.80 +/- 0.10 vs. 3.0 +/- 0.1 (P < 0.01). ISLD determined by 64 MSCT vs. IVUS is: Vision 1.73 +/- 0.06 mm vs. 2.8 +/- 0.0; Cypher 1.87 +/- 0.12 vs. 2.9 +/- 0.0; Taxus 1.77 +/- 0.06 vs. 2.9 +/- 0.0; Liberté 1.80 +/- 0.10 vs. 3.0 +/- 0.1 (P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: When compared to IVUS measurements, MSCT results in a significant, underestimation of ISLD. This consistent underestimation (even with 64 MSCT) limits the applicability of CT angiography to quantify in-stent restenosis.