349 Improving the utility and cost-effectiveness of NT-proBNP for the screening of patients considered at high risk of left ventricular systolic dysfunction in primary care

2006 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 74-74
Author(s):  
K GOODE ◽  
A CLARK ◽  
J BRISTOW ◽  
K SYKES ◽  
J CLELAND
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Left Ventricular Systolic Dysfunction ◽  
Systolic Dysfunction ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Ventricular Systolic Dysfunction

scholarly journals Cross sectional study estimating prevalence of heart failure and left ventricular systolic dysfunction in community patients at risk

Heart ◽  
2001 ◽  
Vol 86 (2) ◽  
pp. 172-178 ◽  
Author(s):  
O W Nielsen ◽  
J Hilden ◽  
C T Larsen ◽  
J F Hansen
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Primary Care ◽  
General Practice ◽  
Heart Disease ◽  
Left Ventricular Systolic Dysfunction ◽  
Systolic Dysfunction ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Ventricular Systolic Dysfunction ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
General Practices

OBJECTIVETo examine a general practice population to measure the prevalence of signs and symptoms of heart failure (SSHF) and left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD).DESIGNCross sectional screening study in three general practices followed by echocardiography.SETTING AND PATIENTSAll patients ⩾ 50 years in two general practices and ⩾ 40 years in one general practice were screened by case record reviews and questionnaires (n = 2158), to identify subjects with some evidence of heart disease. Among these, subjects were sought who had SSHF (n = 115). Of 357 subjects with evidence of heart disease, 252 were eligible for examination, and 126 underwent further cardiological assessment, including 43 with SSHF.MAIN OUTCOME MEASURESPrevalence of SSHF as defined by a modified Boston index, LVSD defined as an indirectly measured left ventricular ejection fraction ⩽ 0.45, and numbers of subjects needing an echocardiogram to detect one case with LVSD.RESULTSSSHF afflicted 0.5% of quadragenarians and rose to 11.7% of octogenarians. Two thirds were handled in primary care only. At ⩾ 50 years of age 6.4% had SSHF, 2.9% had LVSD, and 1.9% (95% confidence interval 1.3% to 2.5%) had both. To detect one case with LVSD in primary care, 14 patients with evidence of heart disease without SSHF and 5.5 patients with SSHF had to be examined.CONCLUSIONSSHF is extremely prevalent in the community, especially in primary care, but more than two thirds do not have LVSD. The number of subjects with some evidence of heart disease needing an echocardiogram to detect one case of LVSD is 14.

scholarly journals Electrocardiography and Chest X-ray in Prediction of Left Ventricular Systolic Dysfunction

KYAMC Journal ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 118-122
Author(s):  
Md Nure Alom Siddiqui ◽  
Shahnaj Sultana ◽  
Abul Hossain ◽  
Muhammad Afsar Siddiqui
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Left Ventricular Systolic Dysfunction ◽  
Systolic Function ◽  
Systolic Dysfunction ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Left Ventricular Ejection ◽  
Ventricular Systolic Dysfunction ◽  
X Ray ◽  
Chest X Ray ◽  
Trained Manpower

Introduction: Echocardiography is the definitive diagnostic tool for left ventricular systolic dysfunction. But it is expensive and requires trained manpower and thus might not be available in the primary care set up. EGG and Chest X ray, the more basic investigations, may help diagnose LVSD or at least streamline those who absolutely require echocardiography in primary care setup. Methods: ECG, Chest X ray and Echocardiography along with clinical assessment were performed on 70 patients with some form of complaints related to heart. The inferences on systolic function obtained from ECG, Chest X ray were compared with Echocardiography findings. Results: Out of 70 participants, 50 had left ventricular ejection fraction less than 45%, 56 had abnormal EGG, 60 had cardiomegaly in chest X-ray. A set of pre-selected ECG abnormalities had a sensitivity of 100% (83.4-100), specificity of 70% (35.4-91.9) and a positive predictive value of 89.3% (70.6-97.2) in diagnosing LVSD. Likewise, the figures were 92% (72.5-98.6), 30% (8.l-64.6) and 76.7% (57.3-89.4) respectively for a cardiothoracic ratio of more than 0.5 in chest X-ray. Conclusions: Although, ECG and Chest X-ray could not replace Echocardiography, they could very well give an idea of the systolic function of an individual and suggest the need or no need for an echo-study in primary care setup.DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3329/kyamcj.v2i1.13515 KYAMC Journal Vol.2(1) 2011 pp.118-122

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document