Indian journal of anaesthesia · 2022
Evaluation of the electronic stethoscope (FONODOC) as a cardiac screening tool during the preoperative evaluation of children.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Ahuja Vasudha, Kini Priyanka, Nileshwar Anitha
Аннотация
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: An electronic stethoscope with an inbuilt phonocardiogram is a potentially useful tool for paediatric cardiac evaluation in a resource-limited setting. We aimed to compare the acoustic and electronic stethoscopes with respect to the detection of murmurs as compared to the transthoracic echocardiogram (TTE).
METHODS: This was an observational study. Fifty children aged 0-12 years with congenital heart diseases (CHDs) and 50 without CHD scheduled for echocardiography were examined using both stethoscopes. The findings were corroborated with clinical findings and compared with the echocardiography report.
RESULTS: Among the 50 cases without CHD, no murmur was detected using either of the stethoscopes. This was in agreement with TTE findings. The calculated specificity of both stethoscopes was 100%. Amongst the 50 cases with CHD, the electronic stethoscope picked up murmurs in 32 cases and missed 18 cases. The acoustic stethoscope picked up murmurs in 29 cases and missed 21 cases. Thus, the sensitivity of electronic and acoustic stethoscopes as compared to TTE was calculated to be 64% and 58%, respectively. The positive predictive value of the electronic stethoscope as compared to TTE was 100% while the negative predictive value was 73%. The kappa statistic was 0.93 suggesting agreement in 93%. Mc-Nemar's test value was 0.24 suggesting that the electronic stethoscope did not offer any advantage over the acoustic stethoscope for the detection of CHD in children.
CONCLUSION: A comparison of the electronic stethoscope with an acoustic stethoscope suggests that the rate of detection of CHD with both stethoscopes is similar and echocardiography remains the gold standard.
METHODS: This was an observational study. Fifty children aged 0-12 years with congenital heart diseases (CHDs) and 50 without CHD scheduled for echocardiography were examined using both stethoscopes. The findings were corroborated with clinical findings and compared with the echocardiography report.
RESULTS: Among the 50 cases without CHD, no murmur was detected using either of the stethoscopes. This was in agreement with TTE findings. The calculated specificity of both stethoscopes was 100%. Amongst the 50 cases with CHD, the electronic stethoscope picked up murmurs in 32 cases and missed 18 cases. The acoustic stethoscope picked up murmurs in 29 cases and missed 21 cases. Thus, the sensitivity of electronic and acoustic stethoscopes as compared to TTE was calculated to be 64% and 58%, respectively. The positive predictive value of the electronic stethoscope as compared to TTE was 100% while the negative predictive value was 73%. The kappa statistic was 0.93 suggesting agreement in 93%. Mc-Nemar's test value was 0.24 suggesting that the electronic stethoscope did not offer any advantage over the acoustic stethoscope for the detection of CHD in children.
CONCLUSION: A comparison of the electronic stethoscope with an acoustic stethoscope suggests that the rate of detection of CHD with both stethoscopes is similar and echocardiography remains the gold standard.