Detection of heart disease by open access echocardiography: A retrospective analysis of general practice referrals

19Citations
Citations of this article
25Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Background: Heart disease is difficult to detect clinically and it has been suggested that echocardiography should be available to all patients with possible cardiac symptoms or signs. Aim: To analyse the results of 2 years of open access echocardiography for the frequency of structural heart disease according to request. Design and setting: Retrospective database analysis in a teaching hospital open access echocardiography service. Method: Reports of all open access transthoracic echocardiograms between January 2011 and December 2012 were categorised as normal, having minor abnormalities, or significant abnormalities according to the indication. Results: There were 2343 open access echocardiograms performed and there were significant abnormalities in 29%, predominantly valve disease ( n = 304, 13%), LV systolic dysfunction (n = 179, 8%), aortic dilatation (n = 80, 3%), or pulmonary hypertension (n = 91, 4%). If echocardiography had been targeted at a highrisk group, 267 with valve disease would have been detected (compared to 127 with murmur alone) and 139 with LV systolic dysfunction (compared to 91 with suspected heart failure alone). Most GP practices requested fewer than 10 studies, but 6 practices requested over 70 studies. Conclusion: Open access echocardiograms are often abnormal but structural disease may not be suspected from the clinical request. Uptake by individual practices is patchy. A targeted expansion of echocardiography in patients with a high likelihood of disease is therefore likely to increase the detection of clinically important pathology. ©British Journal of General Practice.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Chambers, J., Kabir, S., & Cajeat, E. (2014). Detection of heart disease by open access echocardiography: A retrospective analysis of general practice referrals. British Journal of General Practice, 64(619). https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp14X677167

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free