Review question | Is handheld echocardiography able to accurately diagnose LV dysfunction compared with TTE? | |||
Population | 6062 participants aged 65±5 years with a male predominance of 54% requiring routine referral for TTE | |||
Setting | Single centres with access to TTE | |||
Studies | Studies of diagnostic tests | |||
Quality of evidence | Majority of studies reported consecutive or random sampling, blinding of assessors and short time between HUD and TTE imaging (24–28 hours) | |||
Pooled results | Sensitivity (95% CI) | Specificity (95% CI) | ||
Experienced | Inexperienced | Experienced | Inexperienced | |
LVEF (any abnormality) | 88 (81 to 92) | 83 (71 to 90) | 96 (90 to 98) | 89 (81 to 93) |
LVEF (moderate/severe) | 93 (89 to 96) | 84 (72 to 92) | 96 (87 to 99) | 91 (83 to 95) |
WMA | 85 (76 to 91) | 78 (70 to 84) | 95 (93 to 96) | 88 (85 to 90) |
LV dilatation | 89 (64 to 97) | 68 (51 to 81) | 98 (93 to 99) | 95 (93 to 96) |
LVH | 85 (72 to 92) | 80 (61 to 91) | 91 (82 to 96) | 87 (67 to 96) |
HUD, handheld ultrasound devices; LV, left ventricular; LVEF, LV ejection fraction; LVH, LV dilatation and hypertrophy; TTE, transthoracic echocardiography; WMA, wall motion abnormalities.