Mao-Hung Lo1, Chien-Fu Huang1, I-Chun Lin1, Ying-Jui Lin1, Hsuan-Chang Kuo1, Kai-Sheng Hsieh2. 1. Department of Pediatrics, Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital and Chang Gung University College of Medicine, Kaohsiung, Taiwan. 2. Department of Pediatrics, Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital and Chang Gung University College of Medicine, Kaohsiung, Taiwan. Electronic address: kshsieh@adm.cgmh.org.tw.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/ PURPOSE: To investigate whether a palm-held ultrasonocardiographic scanner would be useful for screening and follow-up in congenital heart disease (CHD). METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the echocardiographic images from June 1, 2014 to November 1, 2014. All patients underwent two ultrasonographic examinations including palm-held scanner examination and standard echocardiography. To compare the quality of the two instruments, we developed a diagnostic scoring system ranging from 1 point to 10 points, with 10 points indicating the best quality. Two experienced echocardiographers retrospectively reviewed all recorded images blindedly and gave each examination a score. Comparisons of diagnostic score between two equipments were performed. RESULTS: A total of 262 patients' images were reviewed. All cardiac lesions could be detected with both instruments. The mean diagnostic score of palm-held scanner and standard echocardiography were 8.20±0.53 versus 9.64±0.37 (p<0.05) in color image and 7.00±1.05 versus 8.56±1.14 (p<0.05) in gray-scale two-dimensional image, respectively. When we compared the score between the two instruments in individual CHDs, we found standard echocardiography had better quality except for detecting muscular ventricular septal defect and pulmonary regurgitation. CONCLUSION: The diagnostic sensitivity of palm-held scanner in detecting CHD was very good. Despite both instruments having a high diagnostic score in detecting CHD, standard echocardiography had better quality. Traditional echocardiography is still the standard tool for CHD evaluation. However, the palm-held scanner can support physical examination for initial screening and follow-up, and offer cardiologists an opportunity to visualize and listen to the heart at any time.
BACKGROUND/ PURPOSE: To investigate whether a palm-held ultrasonocardiographic scanner would be useful for screening and follow-up in congenital heart disease (CHD). METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the echocardiographic images from June 1, 2014 to November 1, 2014. All patients underwent two ultrasonographic examinations including palm-held scanner examination and standard echocardiography. To compare the quality of the two instruments, we developed a diagnostic scoring system ranging from 1 point to 10 points, with 10 points indicating the best quality. Two experienced echocardiographers retrospectively reviewed all recorded images blindedly and gave each examination a score. Comparisons of diagnostic score between two equipments were performed. RESULTS: A total of 262 patients' images were reviewed. All cardiac lesions could be detected with both instruments. The mean diagnostic score of palm-held scanner and standard echocardiography were 8.20±0.53 versus 9.64±0.37 (p<0.05) in color image and 7.00±1.05 versus 8.56±1.14 (p<0.05) in gray-scale two-dimensional image, respectively. When we compared the score between the two instruments in individual CHDs, we found standard echocardiography had better quality except for detecting muscular ventricular septal defect and pulmonary regurgitation. CONCLUSION: The diagnostic sensitivity of palm-held scanner in detecting CHD was very good. Despite both instruments having a high diagnostic score in detecting CHD, standard echocardiography had better quality. Traditional echocardiography is still the standard tool for CHD evaluation. However, the palm-held scanner can support physical examination for initial screening and follow-up, and offer cardiologists an opportunity to visualize and listen to the heart at any time.