Hezzell Melanie J, Ostroski Cassandra, Oyama Mark A, Harries Benjamin, Drobatz Kenneth J, Reineke Erica L
Department of Clinical Studies - Philadelphia, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.
J Vet Emerg Crit Care (San Antonio). 2020 Mar;30(2):159-164. doi: 10.1111/vec.12930. Epub 2020 Feb 18.
To determine whether focused cardiac ultrasound (FOCUS) performed by emergency and critical care (ECC) specialists or residents in training improves differentiation of cardiac (C) versus non-cardiac (NC) causes of respiratory distress in dogs compared to medical history and physical examination alone.
Prospective cohort study (May 2014 to February 2016).
University hospital.
Thirty-eight dogs presenting with respiratory distress.
FOCUS.
Medical history, physical examination, and FOCUS were obtained at presentation. Emergency and critical care clinicians, blinded to any radiographic or echocardiographic data, categorized each patient (C vs NC) before and after FOCUS. Thoracic radiography (within 3 h) and echocardiography (within 24 h) were performed. Percent agreement was calculated against a reference diagnosis that relied on agreement of a board-certified cardiologist and ECC specialist with access to all diagnostic test results. Reference diagnosis included 22 dogs with cardiac and 13 dogs with noncardiac causes of respiratory distress. In 3 dogs a reference diagnosis was not established. Prior to FOCUS, positive and negative percent agreement to detect cardiac causes was 90.9% (95% CI, 70.8-98.9) and 53.9% (25.1-80.8), respectively. Overall agreement occurred in 27 of 35 dogs (77.1%). Two C and 6 NC cases were incorrectly categorized. Following FOCUS, positive and negative percent agreement to detect cardiac causes was 95.5% (77.2-99.9) and 69.2% (38.6-90.9), respectively. Overall agreement occurred in 30 of 35 dogs (85.7%). Three dogs with discrepant pre-FOCUS diagnoses were correctly re-categorized post-FOCUS. One C and 4 NC cases remained incorrectly categorized. No correctly categorized dogs were incorrectly re-categorized following FOCUS. The proportions of dogs correctly classified pre- versus post-FOCUS were not significantly different (P = 0.25).
FOCUS did not significantly improve differentiation of C vs NC causes of respiratory distress compared to medical history and physical examination alone.
确定由急诊与重症监护(ECC)专科医生或规培住院医师进行的心脏聚焦超声检查(FOCUS)与仅依靠病史和体格检查相比,是否能更好地区分犬类呼吸窘迫的心脏(C)原因与非心脏(NC)原因。
前瞻性队列研究(2014年5月至2016年2月)。
大学医院。
38只出现呼吸窘迫的犬。
FOCUS检查。
在犬就诊时获取病史、体格检查结果及FOCUS检查结果。急诊与重症监护临床医生在不知任何放射影像学或超声心动图数据的情况下,在FOCUS检查前后对每只病犬(C类与NC类)进行分类。进行胸部放射摄影(3小时内)和超声心动图检查(24小时内)。根据由一名获得委员会认证的心脏病专家和ECC专科医生共同做出的参考诊断(该诊断可获取所有诊断检查结果)计算一致性百分比。参考诊断包括22只患有心脏原因导致呼吸窘迫的犬和13只患有非心脏原因导致呼吸窘迫的犬。3只犬未得出参考诊断结果。在FOCUS检查前,检测心脏原因的阳性和阴性一致性百分比分别为90.9%(95%CI,70.8 - 98.9)和53.9%(25.1 - 80.8)。35只犬中有27只(77.1%)总体诊断一致。2例C类和6例NC类病例分类错误。FOCUS检查后,检测心脏原因的阳性和阴性一致性百分比分别为95.5%(77.2 - 99.9)和69.2%(38.6 - 90.9)。35只犬中有30只(占85.7%)总体诊断一致。3只FOCUS检查前诊断存在差异的犬在FOCUS检查后被正确重新分类。1例C类和4例NC类病例仍分类错误。FOCUS检查后,没有正确分类的犬被错误重新分类。FOCUS检查前后正确分类的犬的比例无显著差异(P = 0.25)。
与仅依靠病史和体格检查相比,FOCUS检查在区分呼吸窘迫的C类与NC类原因方面未显著改善。