PURPOSE: To test the reliability and performance of two physical diagnosis algorithms for use in physical examination of vascular access grafts. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Grafts were assessed in 39 patients by means of physical examination performed by four observers. Grafts were characterized as having a thrill, pulse, or indeterminate examination at three locations (arterial, midpoint, venous). Findings with this algorithm were compared with those from ultrasound (US) with volume flow measurements. RESULTS: Patients with a thrill at all three locations of the graft all had volume flows greater than 450 mL/min (negative predictive value = 100%). Of patients with a pulse at any of three locations, only 28% (positive predictive value) had a volume flow of 450 mL/min or less. CONCLUSION: Physical examination is a good screening test for ruling out the low flows associated with impending access graft failure, thereby eliminating the need for routine US for many patients.
PURPOSE: To test the reliability and performance of two physical diagnosis algorithms for use in physical examination of vascular access grafts. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Grafts were assessed in 39 patients by means of physical examination performed by four observers. Grafts were characterized as having a thrill, pulse, or indeterminate examination at three locations (arterial, midpoint, venous). Findings with this algorithm were compared with those from ultrasound (US) with volume flow measurements. RESULTS:Patients with a thrill at all three locations of the graft all had volume flows greater than 450 mL/min (negative predictive value = 100%). Of patients with a pulse at any of three locations, only 28% (positive predictive value) had a volume flow of 450 mL/min or less. CONCLUSION: Physical examination is a good screening test for ruling out the low flows associated with impending access graft failure, thereby eliminating the need for routine US for many patients.