Advertisement
Heart, Lung and Circulation

Accuracy of Highly Limited Echocardiographic Screening Images for Determining a Structurally Normal Heart: The Quick-Six Study

Published:October 13, 2021DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hlc.2021.08.021

      Introduction

      Experienced echocardiographers can quickly glean diagnostic information from limited echocardiographic views. The use of limited cardiac ultrasound, particularly as a screening tool, is increasing. During the COVID-19 pandemic, limited cardiac ultrasound has the major advantage of reducing exposure time between sonographer and patient. The sensitivity and negative predictive value of a “screening” echocardiogram with highly limited views is uncertain.

      Aim/Method

      We examined the accuracy of limited echocardiography in 203 consecutive, de novo studies. We used six images: parasternal long axis, with colour Doppler over the mitral valve, and aortic valve, and apical four-chamber with colour Doppler over the mitral valve, and tricuspid valve. We compared the interpretation of 12 subjects with the final echocardiogram report, (gold standard). The subjects comprised four experienced echocardiography-specialised cardiologists, four experienced cardiologists with non-imaging subspecialty interests, and four senior cardiac sonographers. Studies were graded as: (1) normal or (2) needs full study (due to inadequate images or abnormality detected). Sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value, positive predictive value and accuracy are reported.

      Results

      Forty-one per cent (41%) of studies were normal by the gold standard report. Overall, a screening echocardiogram had a sensitivity of 71.2%, specificity of 57.1% to detect an abnormal echocardiogram, negative predictive value 58.4%, positive predictive value of 70.2%, and accuracy of 65.4%. When inadequate images were excluded, overall accuracy was nearly identical at 64.6%. The overall accuracy between the three groups of interpreters was similar: 66.5% (95% CI 63.1–69.7) for echocardiography-specialised cardiologists, 65.3% (95% CI 61.9–68.5) for non-echocardiography specialised cardiologists, and 64.4% (95% CI 61.0–67.7) for sonographers. These groups are all highly experienced practitioners. There was no difference in sensitivity or specificity comparing echocardiography-specialised cardiologists with cardiologists of other subspecialty experience. Comparing cardiologists to sonographers, cardiologists had lower sensitivity (echocardiography specialists 67.6%, 95% CI 63.2–71.8, non-echocardiography specialists 62.0%, 95% CI 57.4–66.4) compared to sonographers (84.0% [95% CI 80.4–87.2, p<0.05]), but cardiologists had higher specificities (64.9% [95% CI 59.5–70.0] for the echocardiography specialists, and 69.9% [95% CI 64.7–74.8] for non echocardiography specialists), compared to 36.6% (95% CI 31.4–42.0, p<0.05) for the sonographer group. When looking at only the studies considered to be interpretable, cardiologists had higher positive predictive value (echocardiography specialists 73.7%, 95% CI 69.0–78.1, non echocardiography specialists 74.1%, 95% CI 68.8–79.9), as compared to sonographers (64.3%, 95% CI 59.8–68.5%).

      Conclusions

      Limited cardiac ultrasound as a screening tool for a normal heart had a sensitivity of only 71%, when performed and interpreted by experienced personnel, raising questions regarding the safety of this practice. Caution is especially recommended in extrapolating its use to non-specialised settings.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Heart, Lung and Circulation
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Douglas P.S.
        • Garcia M.J.
        • Haines D.E.
        • Lai W.W.
        • Manning W.J.
        • Patel A.R.
        • et al.
        ACCF/ASE/AHA/ASNC/HFSA/HRS/SCAI/SCCM/SCCT/SCMR 2011 Appropriate Use Criteria for Echocardiography. A Report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Appropriate Use Criteria Task Force, American Society of Echocardiography, American Heart Association, American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, Heart Failure Society of America, Heart Rhythm Society, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Critical Care Medicine, Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, and Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance Endorsed by the American College of Chest Physicians.
        J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011; 57: 1126-1166
      1. Medicare Benefits Schedule Review Taskforce. MBS Review Taskforce Recommendations - Cardiac Services Report. 2018.
        (Available at:)
        • Al-Kaisey A.J.E.
        • Nadurata V.
        • Farouque O.
        • De Silva D.
        • Ramchand J.
        Appropriate use of echocardiography in an Australian regional centre.
        Intern Med J. 2015; 45: 1128-1133
        • De Nardo A.N.S.
        Utilisation of echocardiography and application of the appropriate use criteria at a large tertiary hospital in Queensland.
        Australas J Ultrasound Med. 2016; 19: 64-70
        • Pathan F.
        • Fonseca R.
        • Marwick T.H.
        Usefulness of hand-held ultrasonography as a gatekeeper to standard echocardiography for “Rarely Appropriate” echocardiography requests.
        Am J Cardiol. 2016; 118: 1588-1592
        • Kobal S.L.
        • Liel-Cohen N.
        • Shimony S.
        • Neuman Y.
        • Konstantino Y.
        • Dray E.M.
        • et al.
        Impact of point-of-care ultrasound examination on triage of patients with suspected cardiac disease.
        Am J Cardiol. 2016; 118: 1583-1587
        • Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care
        Third Atlas of Healthcare Variation. 2018.
        (Available at:)
        • Patel A.R.
        • Patel A.R.
        • Singh S.
        • Singh S.
        • Khawaja I.
        Cardiac ultrasound in the intensive care unit: a review.
        Cureus. 2019; 11: e4612
        • Sandhu A.T.
        • Parizo J.
        • Moradi-Ragheb N.
        • Heidenreich P.A.
        Association between offering limited left ventricular ejection fraction echocardiograms and overall use of echocardiography.
        JAMA Intern Med. 2018; 178: 1270-1272
        • Kimura B.J.
        • DeMaria A.N.
        Time requirements of the standard echocardiogram: implications regarding limited studies.
        J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2003; 16: 1015-1018
        • Kirkpatrick J.N.
        • Mitchell C.
        • Taub C.
        • Kort S.
        • Hung J.
        • Swaminathan M.
        ASE Statement on Protection of Patients and Echocardiography Service Providers During the 2019 Novel Coronavirus Outbreak: Endorsed by the American College of Cardiology.
        J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2020; 33: 648-653
        • Ward R.P.
        • Lee L.
        • Ward T.J.
        • Lang R.M.
        Utilization and appropriateness of transthoracic echocardiography in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
        J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2020; 33: 690-691