4.5 Review

Transthoracic Echocardiography for Diagnosing Pulmonary Embolism: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

期刊

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.echo.2017.03.004

关键词

Ultrasound; Ultrasonography; Pulmonary embolism; Critical care

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Pulmonary embolism (PE) is a common diagnosis with significant mortality if not appropriately treated. The use of transthoracic echocardiography in patients with PE is common; however, its diagnostic capabilities in this use are unclear. With the increased use of ultrasonography in medical settings, it is important to understand the strengths and limitations of echocardiography for the diagnosis of PE. Methods: We conducted a systematic review of PubMed, CINAHL, and EMBASE through 2016 for articles assessing the diagnostic accuracy of transthoracic echocardiography for PE. Two authors independently abstracted relevant data from the studies. We assessed quality using the QUADAS-2 tool for diagnostic studies. Results: Undefined right heart strain'' was the most common sign used, and it had a sensitivity of 53% (95% CI, 45%-61%) and a specificity of 83% (95% CI, 74%-90%). Eleven other distinct signs were identified: ventricle size ratio, abnormal septal motion, tricuspid regurgitation, 60/60 sign, McConnell's sign, right heart thrombus, right ventricle hypokinesis, pulmonary hypertension, right ventricular end-diastolic diameter, tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion, and right ventricular systolic pressure. Conclusions: Studies show a consistently high specificity and low sensitivity for echocardiography in the diagnosis of PE, making it potentially adequate as a rule-in test at the bedside in critical care settings such as the emergency department and intensive care unit for patients with a suspicion of PE, especially those unable to get other confirmatory studies. Future research may continue to clarify the role of bedside echocardiography in conjunction with other tests and imaging in the overall management of PE.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据