Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 2 of 2 items for

  • Author: Adrian Ionescu x
  • User-accessible content x
Clear All Modify Search
Open access

Victor Galusko, Owen Bodger and Adrian Ionescu

Introduction

Hand-held imaging devices are widely used in clinical practice and are a useful tool. There is no published review examining the diagnostic parameters achieved with these devices in clinical practice.

Methods

We searched three online medical literature databases (PubMed, EMBASE and MEDLINE) for all literature published up until January 2018. We selected studies that (1) were conducted in the adult population; (2) used a truly hand-held device; (3) featured sensitivities and/or specificities on the use of the hand-held scanner. We extracted and summarised the diagnostic metrics from the literature.

Results

Twenty-seven articles were excluded from the initial 56 relevant articles, as the device featured was not truly hand-held. Ultimately a total of 25 studies were analysed. Sixteen studies were carried out by experienced users, seven by users with little previous experience and two studies by nurses. High diagnostic parameters were achieved by all three groups when scanning cardiac pathology and intra-abdominal structures. Training of non-expert users varied, taking a mean of 21.6 h. These hand-held devices can change diagnoses at the bedside and be used as gate-keepers to formal echocardiography. Individual studies show them to be cost-effective.

Conclusion

Hand-held echocardiography is a useful tool in the hands of experts and novices alike. Studies conducted are highly heterogeneous making it difficult to pool data for the diagnostic metrics. Further studies with rigorous methodology are needed to evaluate the true diagnostic potential in the hands of non-experts and in the community as well as to validate training protocols.

Open access

Catrin Williams, Anca Mateescu, Emma Rees, Kirstie Truman, Claire Elliott, Bohdana Bahlay, Ailsa Wallis and Adrian Ionescu

Background

Data about the epidemiology of valvular heart disease (VHD) in the elderly is scarce. Hand-held ultrasound devices (HUDs) enable point-of-care ultrasound scanning (POCUS) but their use in an elderly population has not been reported for VHD screening in primary practice.

Methods

One hundred consecutive subjects aged >70 years without a VHD diagnosis had 2D and colour Doppler POCUS by an accredited sonographer, using a contemporary HUD (Vscan), in a primary practice setting. Patients with left-sided valve pathology identified by Vscan were referred for formal echo in the local tertiary cardiac centre.

Results

Mean age (s.d.) was 79.08 (3.74) years (72–92 years); 61 female. By Vscan, we found five patients with ≥moderate aortic stenosis (AS), eight with ≥moderate mitral regurgitation (MR) and none with ≥moderate aortic regurgitation. In the AS and MR groups each, one patient had valve intervention following from the initial diagnosis by Vscan, two and one respectively are under follow-up in the valve clinic, while two and four respectively refused TTE or follow-up. Two patients with moderate MR by Vscan had mild and mild/moderate MR respectively by TTE and were discharged. Total cost for scanning 100 patients was $18,201 – i.e. $182/patient.

Conclusions

Screening with a hand-held scanner (Vscan), we identified 5/100 elderly subjects who needed valve replacement or follow-up in valve clinic, at a cost of $182/patient. These findings have potential significance for the allocation of resources in the context of an ageing population.