Literature DB >> 18082528

Comparison with computed tomography of two ultrasound devices for diagnosis of abdominal aortic aneurysm.

Radosav Vidakovic1, Harm H H Feringa, Ruud J Kuiper, Stefanos E Karagiannis, Olaf Schouten, Martin Dunkelgrun, Sanne E Hoeks, Nicolaas Bom, Jeroen J Bax, Aleksandar N Neskovic, Don Poldermans.   

Abstract

Screening for abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) in patients at risk will become more cost effective if a simple, inexpensive, and reliable ultrasound device is available. The aim of this study was to compare a 2-dimensional, handheld ultrasound device and a newly developed ultrasound volume scanner (based on bladder scan technology) with computed tomography (CT) for diagnosing AAA. A total of 146 patients (mean age 69 +/- 10 years; 127 men) were screened for the presence of AAAs (diameter >3 cm) using CT. All patients were examined with the handheld ultrasound device and the volume scanner. Maximal diameters and volumes were used for the analyses. AAAs were diagnosed by CT in 116 patients (80%). The absolute difference of aortic diameter between ultrasound and CT was <5 mm in 88% of patients. Limits of agreement between ultrasound and CT (-6.6 to 9.4 mm) exceeded the limits of clinical acceptability (+/-5 mm). An excellent correlation between ultrasound and CT was observed (r = 0.98). The correlation coefficient between the volume scanner and CT was 0.86, with agreement of 90% and kappa value of 0.73. Using an optimal cut-off value of >56 ml, defined by receiver-operating characteristic curve analysis, sensitivity, specificity, and the positive and negative predictive values of the volume scanner for detecting AAA were 90%, 90%, 97%, and 71%, respectively. In conclusion, this study shows that a 2-dimensional, handheld ultrasound device and a newly developed ultrasound volume scanner can effectively identify patients with AAAs confirmed by CT.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 18082528     DOI: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2007.07.032

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Cardiol        ISSN: 0002-9149            Impact factor:   2.778


  7 in total

Review 1.  The role of emergency ultrasound in the diagnosis of acute non-traumatic epigastric pain.

Authors:  Americo Testa; Ernesto Cristiano Lauritano; Rosangela Giannuzzi; Giulia Pignataro; Ivo Casagranda; Nicolò Gentiloni Silveri
Journal:  Intern Emerg Med       Date:  2010-05-18       Impact factor: 3.397

Review 2.  Imaging of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm: the present and the future.

Authors:  Hao Hong; Yunan Yang; Bo Liu; Weibo Cai
Journal:  Curr Vasc Pharmacol       Date:  2010-11       Impact factor: 2.719

Review 3.  [Unclear abdominal pain in central emergency admissions. An algorithm].

Authors:  L Berner; H Dormann
Journal:  Med Klin Intensivmed Notfmed       Date:  2013-02-02       Impact factor: 0.840

Review 4.  ACR Appropriateness Criteria® pulsatile abdominal mass, suspected abdominal aortic aneurysm.

Authors:  Benoit Desjardins; Karin E Dill; Scott D Flamm; Christopher J Francois; Marie D Gerhard-Herman; Sanjeeva P Kalva; M Ashraf Mansour; Emile R Mohler; Isabel B Oliva; Matthew P Schenker; Clifford Weiss; Frank J Rybicki
Journal:  Int J Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2012-05-27       Impact factor: 2.357

5.  Ultrasound diagnostics of the abdominal aorta: English version.

Authors:  W Schäberle; L Leyerer; W Schierling; K Pfister
Journal:  Gefasschirurgie       Date:  2015

6.  Digital devices for teaching cardiac auscultation - a randomized pilot study.

Authors:  Malcolm E Legget; MeiYen Toh; Andries Meintjes; Sarah Fitzsimons; Greg Gamble; Robert N Doughty
Journal:  Med Educ Online       Date:  2018-12

7.  Abdominal aorta measurements by a handheld ultrasound device compared with a conventional cart-based ultrasound machine.

Authors:  Abdulrahman M Alfuraih; Abdulaziz I Alrashed; Saleh O Almazyad; Mohammed J Alsaadi
Journal:  Ann Saudi Med       Date:  2021-12-02       Impact factor: 1.526

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.