Primary and Specialty Medical Care, Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Seattle, Wash, USA.
Am J Med. 2010 Oct;123(10):913-921.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2010.04.027.
It is unknown whether echocardiography can provide insights into the origin of systolic murmurs and the modern value of bedside cardiovascular diagnosis.
The author examined 376 inpatients and compared their physical findings to transthoracic echocardiography, exploring the associations between echocardiography and systolic murmurs and investigating the diagnostic accuracy of physical examination for pathologic murmurs.
Four echocardiographic variables predict the presence of systolic murmurs: peak aortic velocity (P <.001); mitral regurgitation severity (P <.001); mitral valve E-point velocity (P=.09); and absence of pericardial effusion (P=.09). When diagnosing murmurs, the most helpful finding is its distribution on the chest wall with respect to the 3(rd) left parasternal space, a landmark that distinguishes murmurs into 6 patterns. The "apical-base" pattern indicates increased aortic velocity (likelihood ratio [LR] 9.7; 95% confidence interval [CI]; 6.7-14): a delayed carotid upstroke (LR 6.8; 95% CI; 4.0-11.5); absent S2 (LR 12.7; 95% CI; 5.3-30.4); and humming quality to the murmur (LR 8.5; 95% CI; 4.3-16.5) further increase the probability of aortic valve disease. The "broad apical" murmur pattern suggests significant mitral regurgitation (LR 6.8; 95% CI; 3.9-11.9); and the "left lower sternal" murmur pattern indicates significant tricuspid regurgitation (LR 8.4; 95% CI; 3.5-20.3): additional bedside observations refine these diagnoses. Nonetheless, this study shows that some classic physical findings are no longer accurate, that physical examination cannot reliably distinguish severe aortic stenosis from less severe stenosis, and that classic physical findings, despite having proven value, are absent in many patients with significant cardiac lesions.
In the diagnosis of systolic murmurs, physical examination has limitations but also unappreciated value. A simple system using onomatopoeia and classifying systolic murmurs into 1 of 6 patterns is diagnostically helpful.
目前尚不清楚超声心动图能否深入了解收缩期杂音的起源以及床边心血管诊断的现代价值。
作者检查了 376 名住院患者,并将其体格检查结果与经胸超声心动图进行了比较,探讨了超声心动图与收缩期杂音之间的关系,并研究了体格检查对病理性杂音的诊断准确性。
四个超声心动图变量可预测收缩期杂音的存在:峰值主动脉速度(P<.001);二尖瓣反流严重程度(P<.001);二尖瓣瓣环 E 点速度(P=.09);心包积液不存在(P=.09)。在诊断杂音时,最有帮助的发现是其在胸壁上的分布相对于第 3 左胸骨旁间隙,该标志将杂音分为 6 种模式。“心尖-基底”模式表明主动脉速度增加(似然比[LR]9.7;95%置信区间[CI];6.7-14):颈动脉上升延迟(LR 6.8;95%CI;4.0-11.5);S2 缺失(LR 12.7;95%CI;5.3-30.4);杂音为嗡嗡声(LR 8.5;95%CI;4.3-16.5)进一步增加了主动脉瓣疾病的可能性。“广泛心尖”杂音模式提示二尖瓣反流严重(LR 6.8;95%CI;3.9-11.9);“左胸骨下”杂音模式提示三尖瓣反流严重(LR 8.4;95%CI;3.5-20.3):额外的床边观察可完善这些诊断。尽管如此,本研究表明,一些经典的体格检查发现不再准确,体格检查不能可靠地区分严重的主动脉瓣狭窄与较轻的狭窄,而且尽管经典的体格检查发现具有一定的价值,但许多有严重心脏病变的患者却没有这些发现。
在收缩期杂音的诊断中,体格检查有其局限性,但也有未被充分认识的价值。使用拟声词的简单系统将收缩期杂音分为 6 种模式之一具有诊断意义。