Handheld echocardiographic screening for rheumatic heart disease by non-experts

被引:97
作者
Ploutz, Michelle [1 ]
Lu, Jimmy C. [1 ]
Scheel, Janet [1 ]
Webb, Catherine [2 ]
Ensing, Greg J. [2 ]
Aliku, Twalib [1 ]
Lwabi, Peter [3 ]
Sable, Craig [1 ]
Beaton, Andrea [1 ]
机构
[1] Childrens Natl Hlth Syst, Dept Pediat Cardiol, Washington, DC 20010 USA
[2] Univ Michigan, Dept Pediat Cardiol, Ann Arbor, MI 48109 USA
[3] Uganda Heart Inst, Dept Pediat Cardiol, Kampala, Uganda
基金
美国国家卫生研究院;
关键词
PREVALENCE; DIAGNOSIS; CHILDREN; UTILITY;
D O I
10.1136/heartjnl-2015-308236
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Objectives Handheld echocardiography (HAND) has good sensitivity and specificity for rheumatic heart disease (RHD) when performed by cardiologists. However, physician shortages in RHD-endemic areas demand less-skilled users to make RHD screening practical. We examine nurse performance and interpretation of HAND using a simplified approach for RHD screening. Methods Two nurses received training on HAND and a simplified screening approach. Consented students at two schools in Uganda were eligible for participation. A simplified approach (HAND performed and interpreted by a non-expert) was compared with the reference standard (standard portable echocardiography, performed and interpreted by experts according to the 2012 World Heart Federation guidelines). Reasons for false-positive and false-negative HAND studies were identified. Results A total of 1002 children were consented, with 956 (11.1years, 41.8% male) having complete data for review. Diagnoses included: 913 (95.5%) children were classified normal, 32 (3.3%) borderline RHD and 11 (1.2%) definite RHD. The simplified approach had a sensitivity of 74.4% (58.8% to 86.5%) and a specificity of 78.8% (76.0% to 81.4%) for any RHD (borderline and definite). Sensitivity improved to 90.9% (58.7% to 98.5%) for definite RHD. Identification and measurement of erroneous colour jets was the most common reason for false-positive studies (n=164/194), while missed mitral regurgitation and shorter regurgitant jet lengths with HAND were the most common reasons for false-negative studies (n=10/11). Conclusions Non-expert-led HAND screening programmes offer a potential solution to financial and workforce barriers that limit widespread RHD screening. Nurses trained on HAND using a simplified approach had reasonable sensitivity and specificity for RHD screening. Information on reasons for false-negative and false-positive screening studies should be used to inform future training protocols, which could lead to improved screening performance.
引用
收藏
页码:35 / U4
页数:5
相关论文
共 14 条
[11]   Screening for Rheumatic Heart Disease Evaluation of a Focused Cardiac Ultrasound Approach [J].
Mirabel, Mariana ;
Bacquelin, Raoul ;
Tafflet, Muriel ;
Robillard, Corinne ;
Huon, Bertrand ;
Corsenac, Philippe ;
de Fremicourt, Isabelle ;
Narayanan, Kumar ;
Meunier, Jean-Michel ;
Noel, Baptiste ;
Hagege, Albert Alain ;
Rouchon, Bernard ;
Jouven, Xavier ;
Marijon, Eloi .
CIRCULATION-CARDIOVASCULAR IMAGING, 2015, 8 (01)
[12]   Prevalence of Rheumatic Heart Disease in Children and Young Adults in Nicaragua [J].
Paar, John A. ;
Berrios, Nubia M. ;
Rose, John D. ;
Caceres, Mercedes ;
Pena, Rodolfo ;
Perez, Wilton ;
Chen-Mok, Mario ;
Jolles, Erik ;
Dale, James B. .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY, 2010, 105 (12) :1809-1814
[13]   World Heart Federation criteria for echocardiographic diagnosis of rheumatic heart disease-an evidence-based guideline [J].
Remenyi, Bo ;
Wilson, Nigel ;
Steer, Andrew ;
Ferreira, Beatriz ;
Kado, Joseph ;
Kumar, Krishna ;
Lawrenson, John ;
Maguire, Graeme ;
Marijon, Eloi ;
Mirabel, Mariana ;
Mocumbi, Ana Olga ;
Mota, Cleonice ;
Paar, John ;
Saxena, Anita ;
Scheel, Janet ;
Stirling, John ;
Viali, Satupaitea ;
Balekundri, Vijayalakshmi I. ;
Wheaton, Gavin ;
Zuehlke, Liesl ;
Carapetis, Jonathan .
NATURE REVIEWS CARDIOLOGY, 2012, 9 (05) :297-309
[14]   Echo-based screening of rheumatic heart disease in children: a cost-effectiveness Markov model [J].
Zachariah, Justin P. ;
Samnaliev, Mihail .
JOURNAL OF MEDICAL ECONOMICS, 2015, 18 (06) :410-419