Accuracy of cardiac auscultation in the era of Doppler-echocardiography: a comparison between cardiologists and internists.

To investigate the present accuracy of cardiac auscultation, we asked a group of senior cardiologists and internists to auscultate respectively 72 and 70 selected patients and to give a diagnosis of the type of lesions heard and their degree of severity, using transthoracic Doppler-echocardiography as the standard reference. The percentage of correctly identified auscultations by cardiologists and by internists, particularly for common valvular lesions, such as aortic stenosis and mitral regurgitation, was respectively 76.1 vs 64.9% (P=0.0787) for all types of lesions taken together, 57.1 vs 48%.0 (P=0.5057) for mild, 82.4 vs 76.0% (P= 0.3335) for moderate-severe and 81.8 vs 27.3% (P=0.0300) for lesions without degree of severity, which included cases of atrial septal defect (ASD) and of hypertrophic cardiomyopathiy (HCM). Our findings show that in the Doppler-echocardiographic era overall cardiac auscultatory proficiency for common valvular lesions is similar in cardiologists and internists. Cardiologists perform better than internists only when auscultating more rare cadiac lesions, such as cases of ASD or HCM.

Stepwise evaluation of syncope: a prospective population-based controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Evaluation of syncope remains often unstructured. The aim of the study was to assess the effectiveness of a standardized protocol designed to improve the diagnosis of syncope. METHODS: Consecutive patients with syncope presenting to the emergency departments of two primary and tertiary care hospitals over a period of 18 months underwent a two-phase evaluation including: 1) noninvasive assessment (phase I); and 2) specialized tests (phase II), if syncope remained unexplained after phase I. During phase II, the evaluation strategy was alternately left to physicians in charge of patients (control), or guided by a standardized protocol relying on cardiac status and frequency of events (intervention). The primary outcomes were the diagnostic yield of each phase, and the impact of the intervention (phase II) measured by multivariable analysis. RESULTS: Among 1725 patients with syncope, 1579 (92%) entered phase I which permitted to establish a diagnosis in 1061 (67%) of them, including mainly reflex causes and orthostatic hypotension. Five-hundred-eighteen patients (33%) were considered as having unexplained syncope and 363 (70%) entered phase II. A cause for syncope was found in 67 (38%) of 174 patients during intervention periods, compared to 18 (9%) of 189 during control (p<0.001). Compared to control periods, intervention permitted diagnosing more cardiac (8%, vs 3%, p=0.04) and reflex syncope (25% vs 6%, p<0.001), and increased the odds of identifying a cause for syncope by a factor of 4.5 (95% CI: 2.6-8.7, p<0.001). Overall, adding the diagnostic yield obtained during phase I and phase II (intervention periods) permitted establishing the cause of syncope in 76% of patients. CONCLUSION: Application of a standardized diagnostic protocol in patients with syncope improved the likelihood of identifying a cause for this symptom. Future trials should assess the efficacy of diagnosis-specific therapy.