4.5 Article

Diagnostic Accuracy of Early Systolic Notching in Pulmonary Embolism

Journal

JOURNAL OF ULTRASOUND IN MEDICINE
Volume 41, Issue 3, Pages 637-644

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jum.15744

Keywords

Doppler notching; emergency medicine; focused cardiac ultrasound; pulmonary embolism

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study found that ESN has low sensitivity but high specificity for PE, especially increasing sensitivity in the subgroup of high or intermediate-high risk PE.
Objective Recently, a cardiac sonography finding, early systolic notching (ESN), was reported with high sensitivity and specificity for the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism (PE) in a limited population. The aim of this study was to determine the diagnostic accuracy of ESN finding for PE in emergency department (ED) patients. Method This prospective multicenter study was conducted in 4 academic EDs. All patients who underwent computed tomography angiography for suspected PE were included in the study. After inclusion, cardiac ultrasound including the right ventricular outflow tract Doppler signal was performed. The diagnostic tests of ESN finding were used for PE and its subgroups. Results In the study, 183 of 201 patients met the study criteria. Of all patients, 52.5% had PE (n = 96), and 19.7% (n = 36) had ESN finding. In all ED patients, the sensitivity of ESN for PE was 34% (95% CI 25-45), and the specificity was 97% (95% CI 90-99). In the subgroup analysis, the sensitivity of ESN for PE with high or intermediate-high risk was 69% (95% CI 49-85), and the specificity was 90% (95% CI 84-94). Inter-rater reliability for ESN finding between the cardiologist and emergency physician was strong with a kappa statistic of 0.87. Conclusion The pulmonary Doppler flow of ESN was moderate to high specific but low sensitive for PE in all ED patients. In the subgroup analysis, this finding was moderate specific and low sensitive.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available