Skip to main content

Table 4 Results from focus cardiac ultrasound (FoCUS) examinations as performed by internal medicine residents with minimal training. Validated by a Standard Echocardiogram (SE)

From: Focused cardiac ultrasound by unselected residents—the challenges

 

FoCUS & SE

Nregistrations

FoCUS Nabnormal

SE Nabnormal

Sens

(95% CI) %

Spes

(95% CI) %

PPV

(95% CI) %

NPV

(95% CI) %

k

LV EF (<40%)

60

29

24

92 (72–99)

81 (63–91)

76 (56–89)

94 (77–99)

0,70

LV dilated

56

13

13

85 (54–97)

100 (89–100)

100 (68–100)

96 (84–99)

0.75

LV WMA

59

23

21

70 (46–87)

78 (60–88)

61 (39–80)

83 (67–93)

0.44

Pericardial effusion

57

11

3

100 (31–100)

85 (72–93)

27 (7–61)

100 (90–100)

0.30

Aortic regurgitation

43

7

10

40 (14–73)

91 (74–98)

57 (20–88)

83 (67–93)

0.35

Mitral regurgitationa

52

7

9

56 (23–85)

95 (83–99)

71 (30–95)

91 (77–97)

0.56

RV FAC (<30%)

45

6

8

50 (14–86)

97 (84–99)

75 (22–99)

92 (78–98)

0.66

RV dilated

52

10

6

67 (24–94)

87 (73–95)

40 (14–73)

95 (83–99)

0.42

RV WMA

44

2

2

50 (2–97)

98 (86–100)

50 (2–97)

98 (86–100)

0.48

Aortic dilation

37

0

2

0 (0–12)

100 (88–100)

n.a.

95 (81–99)

0.0

LA dilated

47

18

24

71 (49–87)

96 (76–100)

94 (71–100)

76 (56–89)

0.66

  1. N number, k Cohen’s kappa for inter-rater agreement, Sens sensitivity, CI confidence interval, Spec specificity, PPV positive predictive value, NPV negative predictive value, LV left ventricle; EF ejection fraction, WMA wall motion abnormalities, RV right ventricle, FAC fractional area change
  2. amoderate or severe
  3. Table 4 shows the number of registered FoCUS examinations of each parameter, n abnormal findings by FoCUS and SE, the respective sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive and negative predictive value for detection of cardiac pathology by FoCUS and kappa value for inter-rater agreement between the two methods