Miller Stephen G, Brook Michael M, Tacy Theresa A
Division of Pediatric Cardiology, University of California at San Francisco, USA.
Pediatr Crit Care Med. 2006 Sep;7(5):441-4. doi: 10.1097/01.PCC.0000227593.63141.36.
To assess the utility and reliability of echocardiographic assessment of hemidiaphragm motion abnormalities in pediatric cardiothoracic patients.
Retrospective observational study, with post hoc blinded assessment of echocardiographic and fluoroscopic results.
Tertiary care center.
Thirty-six consecutive pediatric cardiothoracic patients with suspected hemidiaphragm paralysis were identified and included in the study.
None.
The results of both echocardiographic and fluoroscopic studies on all patients were included. In addition, blinded review of study results were performed. The sensitivity and specificity of fluoroscopy in identifying hemidiaphragms that needed plication were 100% and 74%, respectively. The positive predictive value was 55%; negative predictive value was 100%. Comparing reported diagnoses with blinded review of the studies showed poor agreement; reviewers agreed with 89% diagnosed as normal, 44% of paralyzed, and 76% of paradoxical hemidiaphragms. The sensitivity and specificity of echo in identifying hemidiaphragms that needed plication were 100% and 81%, respectively. The positive predictive value and negative predictive value were 66% and 100%. Comparing reported diagnoses with blinded review, reviewers agreed with 97% diagnosed as normal, 81% of paralyzed, and 100% of paradoxical hemidiaphragms. Echocardiography was less accurate in discriminating between paralyzed and paradoxical diaphragm motion. Echocardiography was specific for paradoxical motion, since both patients identified by echocardiography were confirmed by fluoroscopy, but it was not sensitive. In nine patients, echo showed paralyzed motion that was identified by fluoroscopy as paradoxical.
This study supports the use of echocardiography in the assessment of diaphragm function. When the diaphragms are clearly visualized by echo, as they are in the majority of cases, the addition of an additional fluoroscopic study adds no clinical value. The differentiation between paralyzed and paradoxical motion is unreliable by both imaging modalities.
评估超声心动图对小儿心胸外科患者半膈肌运动异常的评估效用及可靠性。
回顾性观察研究,对超声心动图和荧光透视结果进行事后盲法评估。
三级医疗中心。
连续纳入36例疑似半膈肌麻痹的小儿心胸外科患者进行研究。
无。
纳入所有患者的超声心动图和荧光透视研究结果。此外,对研究结果进行盲法复查。荧光透视识别需要折叠术的半膈肌的敏感性和特异性分别为100%和74%。阳性预测值为55%;阴性预测值为100%。将报告的诊断结果与研究的盲法复查结果进行比较,一致性较差;复查人员对89%诊断为正常、44%诊断为麻痹以及76%诊断为矛盾运动的半膈肌结果表示认同。超声心动图识别需要折叠术的半膈肌的敏感性和特异性分别为100%和81%。阳性预测值和阴性预测值分别为66%和100%。将报告的诊断结果与盲法复查结果进行比较,复查人员对97%诊断为正常、81%诊断为麻痹以及100%诊断为矛盾运动的半膈肌结果表示认同。超声心动图在区分麻痹性和矛盾性膈肌运动方面准确性较低。超声心动图对矛盾运动具有特异性,因为通过超声心动图识别的两名患者经荧光透视证实,但不具有敏感性。在9例患者中,超声心动图显示为麻痹性运动,而荧光透视显示为矛盾运动。
本研究支持使用超声心动图评估膈肌功能。在大多数情况下,当超声心动图能清晰显示膈肌时,额外增加荧光透视检查并无临床价值。两种成像方式在区分麻痹性和矛盾性运动方面均不可靠。