Register for email alerts and news feeds:
This journal | BMJ Group
rss
Heart 2004;90:975-976; doi:10.1136/hrt.2003.031328
Copyright © 2004 BMJ Publishing Group Ltd & British Cardiovascular Society
Heart 2004;90:975-976
© 2004 by BMJ Publishing Group & British Cardiac Society

EDITORIAL

Repeated echocardiography after the diagnosis of endocarditis: too much of a good thing?

C H Cabell, V G Fowler, Jr

Department of Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine, and the Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, North Carolina, USA

Correspondence to:
Correspondence to:
Dr Christopher H Cabell
Box 3850, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC 27710, USA; chris.cabell@duke.edu


Although echocardiography is seen as the technology of choice for the diagnosis of infective endocarditis, it is being increasingly overused in clinical scenarios with a low pre-test probability of disease

Abbreviations: IE, infective endocarditis; TOE, transoesophageal echocardiography; TTE, transthoracic echocardiography

Keywords: echocardiography; endocarditis

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

Since the advent of two dimensional transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) in the 1970s and high frequency transoesophageal echocardiography (TOE) imaging in the 1980s, echocardiography has become a standard diagnostic tool in patients with suspected infective endocarditis (IE). It is now well established that echocardiography is a technology of choice for the diagnosis of IE,1 and that echocardiography can detect cardiac involvement in a significant proportion of patients with clinically occult IE.2,3 Because IE is a lethal infection that can be difficult to diagnose clinically, clinicians who care for patients at risk for IE often have a low threshold for employing echocardiography. This clinical practice has several implications. While echocardiography can often provide a rapid diagnosis, its optimal use is predicated on the appropriate pre-test probability of disease.4,5 By contrast, echocardiography is increasingly overused in clinical scenarios with a low (< 2–3%) pre-test probability of disease, where its diagnostic utility diminishes.6,7

DIAGNOSTIC YIELD

It . . . [Full text of this article]


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?

This Article

Services
Citing Articles
Google Scholar
PubMed
Topic Collections
Bookmark with

Register for free content

The full back archive is now available for all BMJ Journals. Institutional subscribers may access the entire archive as part of their subscription. Personal subscribers will also have access to all content when logged in. Non-subscribers who register have free access to all articles published before 2006 right back to volume 1 issue 1. Register here to access the free archive of all BMJ Journals.

Don't forget to sign up for content alerts so you keep up to date with all the articles as they are published.