超声心动图重新定义渗出性缩窄性心包炎

P. van der Bijl, P. Herbst, A. Doubell
{"title":"超声心动图重新定义渗出性缩窄性心包炎","authors":"P. van der Bijl, P. Herbst, A. Doubell","doi":"10.4250/jcu.2016.24.4.317","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background Effusive-constrictive pericarditis (ECP) is traditionally diagnosed by using the expensive and invasive technique of direct pressure measurements in the pericardial space and the right atrium. The aim of this study was to assess the diagnostic role of echocardiography in tuberculous ECP. Methods Intrapericardial and right atrial pressures were measured pre- and post-pericardiocentesis, and right ventricular and left ventricular pressures were measured post-pericardiocentesis in patients with tuberculous pericardial effusions. Echocardiography was performed post-pericardiocentesis. Traditional, pressure-based diagnostic criteria were compared with post-pericardiocentesis systolic discordance and echocardiographic evidence of constriction. Results Thirty-two patients with tuberculous pericardial disease were included. Sixteen had ventricular discordance (invasively measured), 16 had ECP as measured by intrapericardial and right atrial invasive pressure measurements and 17 had ECP determined echocardiographically. The sensitivity and specificity of pressure-guided measurements (compared with discordance) for the diagnosis of ECP were both 56%. The positive and negative predictive values were both 56%. The sensitivity of echocardiography (compared with discordance) for the diagnosis of ECP was 81% and the specificity 75%, while the positive and the negative predictive values were 76% and 80%, respectively. Conclusion Echocardiography shows a better diagnostic performance than invasive, pressure-based measurements for the diagnosis of ECP when both these techniques are compared with the gold standard of invasively measured systolic discordance.","PeriodicalId":88913,"journal":{"name":"Journal of cardiovascular ultrasound","volume":"78 1","pages":"317 - 323"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"10","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Redefining Effusive-Constrictive Pericarditis with Echocardiography\",\"authors\":\"P. van der Bijl, P. Herbst, A. Doubell\",\"doi\":\"10.4250/jcu.2016.24.4.317\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background Effusive-constrictive pericarditis (ECP) is traditionally diagnosed by using the expensive and invasive technique of direct pressure measurements in the pericardial space and the right atrium. The aim of this study was to assess the diagnostic role of echocardiography in tuberculous ECP. Methods Intrapericardial and right atrial pressures were measured pre- and post-pericardiocentesis, and right ventricular and left ventricular pressures were measured post-pericardiocentesis in patients with tuberculous pericardial effusions. Echocardiography was performed post-pericardiocentesis. Traditional, pressure-based diagnostic criteria were compared with post-pericardiocentesis systolic discordance and echocardiographic evidence of constriction. Results Thirty-two patients with tuberculous pericardial disease were included. Sixteen had ventricular discordance (invasively measured), 16 had ECP as measured by intrapericardial and right atrial invasive pressure measurements and 17 had ECP determined echocardiographically. The sensitivity and specificity of pressure-guided measurements (compared with discordance) for the diagnosis of ECP were both 56%. The positive and negative predictive values were both 56%. The sensitivity of echocardiography (compared with discordance) for the diagnosis of ECP was 81% and the specificity 75%, while the positive and the negative predictive values were 76% and 80%, respectively. Conclusion Echocardiography shows a better diagnostic performance than invasive, pressure-based measurements for the diagnosis of ECP when both these techniques are compared with the gold standard of invasively measured systolic discordance.\",\"PeriodicalId\":88913,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of cardiovascular ultrasound\",\"volume\":\"78 1\",\"pages\":\"317 - 323\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"10\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of cardiovascular ultrasound\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4250/jcu.2016.24.4.317\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of cardiovascular ultrasound","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4250/jcu.2016.24.4.317","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 10

摘要

积液性缩窄性心包炎(ECP)的传统诊断方法是使用昂贵且侵入性的心包间隙和右心房直接压力测量技术。本研究的目的是评估超声心动图在结核性ECP中的诊断作用。方法对结核性心包积液患者行心包穿刺前后心包内压和右心房压测定,心包穿刺后右心室压和左心室压测定。心包穿刺后进行超声心动图检查。将传统的基于压力的诊断标准与心包穿刺后收缩不一致和超声心动图收缩证据进行比较。结果本组32例结核性心包病患者。16例室性不一致(有创测量),16例心包内和右心房有创压力测量ECP, 17例超声心动图测定ECP。压力引导测量诊断ECP的敏感性和特异性(与不一致性相比)均为56%。阳性预测值和阴性预测值均为56%。超声心动图诊断ECP的敏感性为81%,特异性为75%,阳性预测值为76%,阴性预测值为80%。结论超声心动图与有创性收缩期不一致的金标准比较,对ECP的诊断效果优于有创性、基于压力的测量。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Redefining Effusive-Constrictive Pericarditis with Echocardiography
Background Effusive-constrictive pericarditis (ECP) is traditionally diagnosed by using the expensive and invasive technique of direct pressure measurements in the pericardial space and the right atrium. The aim of this study was to assess the diagnostic role of echocardiography in tuberculous ECP. Methods Intrapericardial and right atrial pressures were measured pre- and post-pericardiocentesis, and right ventricular and left ventricular pressures were measured post-pericardiocentesis in patients with tuberculous pericardial effusions. Echocardiography was performed post-pericardiocentesis. Traditional, pressure-based diagnostic criteria were compared with post-pericardiocentesis systolic discordance and echocardiographic evidence of constriction. Results Thirty-two patients with tuberculous pericardial disease were included. Sixteen had ventricular discordance (invasively measured), 16 had ECP as measured by intrapericardial and right atrial invasive pressure measurements and 17 had ECP determined echocardiographically. The sensitivity and specificity of pressure-guided measurements (compared with discordance) for the diagnosis of ECP were both 56%. The positive and negative predictive values were both 56%. The sensitivity of echocardiography (compared with discordance) for the diagnosis of ECP was 81% and the specificity 75%, while the positive and the negative predictive values were 76% and 80%, respectively. Conclusion Echocardiography shows a better diagnostic performance than invasive, pressure-based measurements for the diagnosis of ECP when both these techniques are compared with the gold standard of invasively measured systolic discordance.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Long Term Outcomes of Left Atrial Reservoir Function in Children with a History of Kawasaki Disease. Diagnosis, Treatment, and Prevention of Cardiovascular Toxicity Related to Anti-Cancer Treatment in Clinical Practice: An Opinion Paper from the Working Group on Cardio-Oncology of the Korean Society of Echocardiography. Impact of a Geometric Correction for Proximal Flow Constraint on the Assessment of Mitral Regurgitation Severity Using the Proximal Flow Convergence Method. Recurrent Acute Myocardial Infarction Caused by Intra-cardiac Metastatic Undifferentiated Pleomorphic Sarcoma during Cancer Treatment. A Rare Case of Left Ventricular Noncompaction in LEOPARD Syndrome.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1