| Literature DB >> 29444774 |
Bruno R Nascimento1,2, Craig Sable3, Maria Carmo P Nunes4,2, Adriana C Diamantino4, Kaciane K B Oliveira4, Cassio M Oliveira4, Zilda Maria A Meira4,2, Sandra Regina T Castilho4,2, Júlia P A Santos2, Letícia Maria M Rabelo2, Karlla C A Lauriano2, Gabriel A L Carmo4,2, Allison Tompsett3, Antonio Luiz P Ribeiro4,2, Andrea Z Beaton3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Considering the limited accuracy of clinical examination for early diagnosis of rheumatic heart disease (RHD), echocardiography has emerged as an important epidemiological tool. The ideal setting for screening is yet to be defined. We aimed to evaluate the prevalence and pattern of latent RHD in schoolchildren (aged 5-18 years) and to compare effectiveness of screening between public schools, private schools, and primary care centers in Minas Gerais, Brazil. METHODS ANDEntities:
Keywords: echocardiography; prevalence; rheumatic heart disease; screening; telemedicine
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29444774 PMCID: PMC5850205 DOI: 10.1161/JAHA.117.008039
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Am Heart Assoc ISSN: 2047-9980 Impact factor: 5.501
Figure 1Flow chart of the PROVAR (Rheumatic Valve Disease Screening Program) study. CNHS indicates Children's National Health System; IRB, institutional review board; and UFMG, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais.
Demographic and Clinical Characteristics of Children Undergoing Echocardiographic Screening in Public Schools, Primary Care Centers, and Private Schools
| Variable | Public Schools (n=10 901) | Primary Care Centers (n=558) | Private Schools (n=589) |
| Pairwise Comparisons |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age, median (quartile 1–3) | 12.8 (10.8–15.0) | 13.7 (11.8–16.0) | 15.7 (14.3–16.5) | <0.001 |
|
| Age >12 y, N (%) | 6510 (60.2) | 397 (71.1) | 544 (93.6) | <0.001 |
|
| Male sex, N (%) | 4845 (44.8) | 267 (47.9) | 224 (38.1) | 0.002 |
|
| No. of inhabitants, median (quartile 1–3) | 4.0 (4.0–5.0) | 4.0 (4.0–5.0) | 4.0 (3.0–4.0) | <0.001 |
|
| No. of inhabitants <15 y, median (quartile 1–3) | 2.0 (1.0–2.0) | 1.0 (1.0–2.0) | 1.0 (0–2.0) | <0.001 |
|
| HDI, median (quartile 1–3) | 0.770 (0.762–0.801) | 0.770 (0.770–0.770) | 0.955 (0.955–0.955) | <0.001 |
|
HDI indicates Human Development Index; and quartile 1–3, 25%–75%.
Public schools vs primary care.
Public schools vs private schools.
Primary care vs private schools.
Figure 2Echocardiographic prevalence of rheumatic heart disease according to screening location: public schools, primary care centers, and private schools.
Prevalence of RHD Echocardiographic Findings and WHF Criteria for Borderline and Definite Disease in Children Undergoing Screening in Public Schools, Primary Care Centers, and Private Schools
| Variable | Public Schools (n=10 901) | Primary Care Centers (n=558) | Private Schools (n=589) |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Borderline RHD, N (% [95% CI]) | 433 (4.0 [3.8–4.6]) | 26 (4.7 [3.4–7.2]) | 19 (3.2 [2.2–5.2]) | 0.46 |
| Definite RHD, N (% [95% CI]) | 60 (0.6 [0.5–0.8]) | 1 (0.2 [0.0–1.0]) | 2 (0.3 [0.1–1.2]) | 0.41 |
| Other, N (% [95% CI]) | 65 (0.6 [0.5–0.8]) | 6 (1.1 [0.5–2.3]) | 7 (1.2 [0.6–2.4]) | 0.10 |
| WHF criteria for borderline RHD, N (%) | ||||
| A. At least 2 morphological features of RHD of the MV without pathological MR or MS | 15 (3.5) | 1 (3.8) | 0 | 0.35 |
| B. Pathological MR | 360 (83.1) | 18 (69.2) | 16 (84.2) | |
| C. Pathological AR | 58 (13.4) | 7 (26.9) | 3 (15.8) | |
| WHF criteria for definite RHD, N (%) | ||||
| A. Pathological MR and at least 2 morphological features of RHD of the MV | 40 (66.7) | 1 (100) | 2 (100) | 0.83 |
| B. MS mean gradient >4 mm Hg | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| C. Pathological AR and at least 2 morphological features of RHD of the AV | 5 (8.3) | 0 | 0 | |
| D. Borderline disease of both the AV and MV | 15 (25.0) | 0 | 0 | |
AR indicates aortic regurgitation; AV, aortic valve; CI, confidence interval; MR, mitral regurgitation; MS, mitral stenosis; MV, mitral valve; RHD, rheumatic heart disease; and WHF, World Heart Federation.
Fisher's exact test was used for multiple comparisons of proportions between groups.
Factors Associated With the Presence of Echocardiographic Findings of RHD (Any or Definite): Bivariate and Multivariate Analyses
| Diagnosis | Any RHD (n=541) | Definite RHD (n=63) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variable | OR (95% CI) |
| OR (95% CI) |
|
| Age (each 1 y) | 1.13 (1.10–1.16) | <0.001 | 1.22 (1.11–1.34) | <0.001 |
| Sex (female) | 1.24 (1.04–1.48) | 0.016 | 1.37 (0.82–2.30) | 0.23 |
| No. of inhabitants | 0.99 (0.94–1.05) | 0.79 | 1.05 (0.91–1.21) | 0.54 |
| No. of inhabitants <15 y | 0.89 (0.82–0.97) | 0.007 | 0.85 (0.66–1.09) | 0.20 |
| Screening in public schools | 1.09 (0.80–1.47) | 0.60 | 2.11 (0.66–6.74) | 0.21 |
| Screening in primary care centers | 1.09 (0.73–1.61) | 0.68 | 0.33 (0.05–2.39) | 0.27 |
| Screening in private schools | 0.78 (0.50–1.21) | 0.29 | 0.64 (0.16–2.61) | 0.53 |
| HDI | 1.12 (0.34–3.69) | 0.85 | 0.79 (0.03–24.5) | 0.89 |
| Multivariable analysis | ||||
| Age (each 1 y) | 1.12 (1.09–1.17) | <0.001 | ··· | ··· |
| Sex (female) | 1.18 (0.98–1.42) | 0.09 | ··· | ··· |
| No. of inhabitants <15 y | 1.01 (0.93–1.10) | 0.84 | ··· | ··· |
CI indicates confidence interval; HDI, Human Development Index; OR, odds ratio; and RHD, rheumatic heart disease.
P<0.05.
Three models were run for the bivariate analysis.
Adaptable Strategies for Successful Active RHD Surveillance
| PROVAR Design Feature | Challenge Addressed | Translational Strategy for LMIC |
|---|---|---|
| Diagonal integration | ||
| Screening for RHD within primary healthcare clinics | Vertical (RHD‐specific) vs diagonal (integration into existing systems) program |
Identification of platforms for accessing at‐risk populations (women and children) |
| Follow‐up of screen‐positive cases at the primary healthcare center | Low rates of follow‐up for screen+examinations, patient barriers to travel for care | Consider outreach strategies to bring follow‐up locally, task shifting to lower providers after initial confirmatory diagnosis |
| Use of handheld echocardiography machines | Equipment costs, multifunctional uses | Consider point‐of‐care (not fully functional) echocardiographic equipment to reduce costs, and equipment that can be multipurpose (obstetrical and vascular imaging) |
| Use of equipment for all cardiac concerns and all ages |
Single focus (RHD) vs assessment for other common cardiac conditions | Explore expansion of indications for screening echocardiography to address other cardiac conditions |
| Educational programs for community awareness (house‐to‐house education by community health workers already visiting homes) | Suboptimal participation in screening. Low community knowledge of RHD | Identification of existing educational resources (village health teams, schools, and community organizations) to add RHD education |
| Task shifting | ||
| Use of nonspecialty physicians and nonphysicians for image acquisition | Constrained human resources | Identify a workforce available for continuous training of nonexperts, task shift as appropriate |
| Web‐based initial training | Trainer and trainee time, need for ongoing training of new staff | Consider asynchronous learning platforms |
| Telemedicine/web‐based applications | ||
| Telemedicine for diagnosis | Constrained human resources, large geographic areas |
Consider best staffing for final diagnosis in your setting |
| Continuous competency assessment | Maintenance of high standards and competency | Consider remote monitoring and retraining of staff through telemedicine |
| Web‐based RHD registry | Case tracking and provision of secondary prophylaxis | Consider centralized registers, making RHD a reportable condition |
LMIC indicates low‐ and middle‐income countries; PROVAR, Rheumatic Valve Disease Screening Program; and RHD, rheumatic heart disease.