Skip to main content

Advertisement

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