OBJECTIVE: Pacemaker recipients with left ventricular (LV) dysfunction are potential candidates for upgrades to implantable defibrillators or cardiac resynchronization devices. This study sought to determine if a hand-carried ultrasound (HCU) device could be used for rapid, inexpensive identification of LV dysfunction in a busy pacemaker clinic. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighty patients undergoing routine pacemaker check were enrolled. Patients underwent HCU imaging in the sitting position during device interrogation, by an internist who had 20 h of didactic training and 20 practice examinations. LV dysfunction was defined as ejection fraction (EF) <40%. Patients also underwent echocardiography limited to EF assessment by a sonographer using a full-feature platform. RESULTS: The mean age was 75 +/- 13 years; 49% were female. Coronary artery disease was present in 29%; 82% were NYHA class I or II. At the time of HCU imaging, 48% of patients were receiving RV pacing. HCU images were interpretable in 91% (73/80) and required 3.7 +/- 0.9 min to complete. Based on the full-feature echo, LV dysfunction prevalence was 17/80 (21%); 25% of these patients were NYHA class I. The sensitivity of the HCU exam was 75%, specificity was 91%, negative predictive value was 93%, positive predictive value was 71%, and accuracy was 88%. CONCLUSIONS: HCU screening in a pacemaker clinic by a non-cardiologist can rapidly and accurately identify pacemaker recipients with at least moderate LV dysfunction who might be candidates for device upgrades. Ventricular dyssynchrony associated with RV pacing does not limit HCU identification of LV dysfunction.
OBJECTIVE: Pacemaker recipients with left ventricular (LV) dysfunction are potential candidates for upgrades to implantable defibrillators or cardiac resynchronization devices. This study sought to determine if a hand-carried ultrasound (HCU) device could be used for rapid, inexpensive identification of LV dysfunction in a busy pacemaker clinic. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighty patients undergoing routine pacemaker check were enrolled. Patients underwent HCU imaging in the sitting position during device interrogation, by an internist who had 20 h of didactic training and 20 practice examinations. LV dysfunction was defined as ejection fraction (EF) <40%. Patients also underwent echocardiography limited to EF assessment by a sonographer using a full-feature platform. RESULTS: The mean age was 75 +/- 13 years; 49% were female. Coronary artery disease was present in 29%; 82% were NYHA class I or II. At the time of HCU imaging, 48% of patients were receiving RV pacing. HCU images were interpretable in 91% (73/80) and required 3.7 +/- 0.9 min to complete. Based on the full-feature echo, LV dysfunction prevalence was 17/80 (21%); 25% of these patients were NYHA class I. The sensitivity of the HCU exam was 75%, specificity was 91%, negative predictive value was 93%, positive predictive value was 71%, and accuracy was 88%. CONCLUSIONS: HCU screening in a pacemaker clinic by a non-cardiologist can rapidly and accurately identify pacemaker recipients with at least moderate LV dysfunction who might be candidates for device upgrades. Ventricular dyssynchrony associated with RV pacing does not limit HCU identification of LV dysfunction.
Authors: Charles J Bruce; Samantha C Montgomery; Kent R Bailey; Jamil Tajik; James B Seward Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2002-12-01 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Savitri Fedson; Gregg Neithardt; Patrick Thomas; Alex Lickerman; Michael Radzienda; Jeanne M DeCara; Roberto M Lang; Kirk T Spencer Journal: J Am Soc Echocardiogr Date: 2003-09 Impact factor: 5.251
Authors: Jeanne M Decara; James N Kirkpatrick; Kirk T Spencer; R Parker Ward; Kristen Kasza; Kathleen Furlong; Roberto M Lang Journal: J Am Soc Echocardiogr Date: 2005-03 Impact factor: 5.251
Authors: Arthur J Moss; Wojciech Zareba; W Jackson Hall; Helmut Klein; David J Wilber; David S Cannom; James P Daubert; Steven L Higgins; Mary W Brown; Mark L Andrews Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2002-03-19 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Gust H Bardy; Kerry L Lee; Daniel B Mark; Jeanne E Poole; Douglas L Packer; Robin Boineau; Michael Domanski; Charles Troutman; Jill Anderson; George Johnson; Steven E McNulty; Nancy Clapp-Channing; Linda D Davidson-Ray; Elizabeth S Fraulo; Daniel P Fishbein; Richard M Luceri; John H Ip Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2005-01-20 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: James N Kirkpatrick; Vicki Belka; Kathy Furlong; Beth Balasia; Larry D Jacobs; Matt Corcoran; Allen S Anderson; Anne Pastoret; Kirk T Spencer Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2005-05-15 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: John G F Cleland; Jean-Claude Daubert; Erland Erdmann; Nick Freemantle; Daniel Gras; Lukas Kappenberger; Luigi Tavazzi Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2005-03-07 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: H R Andersen; J C Nielsen; P E Thomsen; L Thuesen; P T Mortensen; T Vesterlund; A K Pedersen Journal: Lancet Date: 1997-10-25 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: M A Lee; M W Dae; J J Langberg; J C Griffin; M C Chin; W E Finkbeiner; J W O'Connell; E Botvinick; M M Scheinman; M Rosenqvist Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 1994-07 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Surekha Mullangi; Stephen M Sozio; Paul Segal; Steven Menez; Carol Martire; Tariq Shafi Journal: Semin Dial Date: 2018-01-03 Impact factor: 3.455
Authors: Sam Jenkins; Samer Alabed; Andrew Swift; Gabriel Marques; Alisdair Ryding; Chris Sawh; James Wardley; Benoy Nalin Shah; Peter Swoboda; Roxy Senior; Robin Nijveldt; Vassilios S Vassiliou; Pankaj Garg Journal: Heart Date: 2021-08-06 Impact factor: 5.994