The use of cross-sectional echocardiography in a general hospital

Utilization of echocardiography by internists and cardiologists: a comparative study

OBJECTIVE

To compare the utilization of echocardiography as a diagnostic tool by internists and cardiologists.

DESIGN

Retrospective study.

SETTING

Tertiary care university hospital.

METHODS

Indications and clinical utility of echocardiographic studies ordered by cardiologists (group A, n = 301) and internists (group B, n = 297) were compared by chart review. The two groups of patients were analyzed to determine if the studies detected new cardiac pathology and/or altered patient management.

RESULTS

The proportion of studies with abnormal results were similar in both groups (19% versus 14%, P > 0.05). The results of echocardiography, however, led to a change in management more often when the study was ordered by cardiologists (16% versus 10%, P < 0.05). A significantly greater proportion of studies were ordered for evaluation of valvular function by internists (44% versus 33%, P < 0.05). Echocardiography detected valvular abnormalities in a similar proportion of cases in groups A and B (14% versus 10%, P > 0.05). However, diagnostic yield was very poor when the study was performed in patients with suspected mitral valve prolapse in both groups. Cardiologists utilized echocardiography more often for evaluation of left ventricular function (35% versus 18%, P < 0.01) and in the setting of atherosclerotic heart disease for detecting wall motion abnormalities (14% versus 5%, P < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Diagnostic yield of echocardiography is similar when ordered by internists and cardiologists. With the information obtained, management is altered in a slightly greater proportion of cases involving a cardiologist. This may be due to utilization of echocardiography more often for estimating left ventricular function and for detecting wall motion abnormalities by cardiologists.

Population-based study of echocardiography. Time trends in utilization and diagnostic profile of an evolving technology, 1975-1987

We evaluated trends in the use of echocardiography among residents of Olmsted County, Minnesota, from January 1, 1975, through June 30, 1987. Annual examinations per 100,000 population among Olmsted County residents increased 6-fold from 264 in 1975 to 1,644 in 1986. Given the pattern of echo use in Olmsted County, these population-based data project a potential annual utilization of 4 million echo exams in the United States. Marked increases over time in labeling of patients with regurgitant valvular heart disease were noted following the introduction of Doppler echocardiography. The diagnostic labeling associated with this evolving technology and the resultant apparent epidemic of valvular regurgitation present a significant clinical technology assessment dilemma.

The contribution of a non-invasive test to clinical care. The impact of echocardiography on diagnosis, management and patient anxiety

We prospectively studied the impact of echocardiography on a cardiologist's diagnosis and management plan and on patient anxiety for 300 consecutive referrals. There was an impact on diagnosis in 90% of patients. Most common was confirmation of diagnosis usually with the addition of information pertinent to management (81%); change of disease category or resolution of diagnostic doubt was uncommon (9%). The consultant cardiologist believed the heart to be normal in 48 patients who did not have any associated disease; none had any echocardiographic abnormality. The cardiologist reported increased diagnostic confidence in 74% of all patients but management changed in only 9%. One-third of all patients reported reduced anxiety when this was an important clinical issue but in less than half of them did the cardiologist consider that echocardiographic information was essential for reassurance. Anxiety was increased in 6%, and in 12% the anxiety response was inconsistent with the test result. The clinical contribution of the test report was most obvious for those patients (30%) in whom this data was required for (a) a decision concerning specific diagnostic or technical intervention (b) a change of management plan which implied obvious or likely health benefit (c) reassurance which was a clinically important issue. The magnitude of this contribution was related to the study indication. The value of echocardiography is obvious when assessing patients for invasive intervention or when proper treatment or adequate reassurance are impeded by diagnostic doubt. However, for many current indications, we need better definition of factors which predict a clinically useful result. In particular, when the aim is to rule-out disease, our results suggest that an expert cardiological opinion would often be more appropriate than an echocardiogram.

The contribution of echocardiography to the community practice of cardiology. A prospective study

The utility of echocardiography in a clinical office practice was assessed by prospectively studying 93 patients. Each patient was examined by a cardiologist and a diagnosis and management plan was outlined. An M-mode and 2D echocardiogram was then obtained and interpreted by a second cardiologist without knowledge of the clinical findings. Patients were then categorized as follows: group 1, clinical and echo diagnosis agree, management unchanged (67 patients); group 2, clinical and echo diagnosis agree, management changed (two patients); group 3, clinical and echo diagnosis disagree, management unchanged (16 patients); and group 4, clinical and echo diagnosis disagree, management changed (eight patients). Echocardiography significantly altered management of 11 percent of patients, provided additional important information in 48 percent, and confirmed the clinical impression in 74 percent of patients. It was particularly helpful in determining left ventricular structure and function, valvular anatomy, and in the diagnosis of clinically unsuspected idiopathic hypertrophic subaortic stenosis.

Clinical utility and management impact of M-mode echocardiography

To determine the clinical utility and management impact of M-mode echocardiography, 182 echocardiograms were analyzed at a university teaching hospital. The physicians who ordered the echocardiograms said that 12 percent provided crucial information that was not available from other tests and that 26 percent resulted in a change in patient management. According to two independent board-certified cardiologist-reviewers, 86 percent of echocardiograms were appropriately ordered, but only 15 echocardiograms (8 percent) were actually needed for a change to a new and appropriate management. According to the reviewers, the 77 Group I M-mode echocardiograms (those ordered to evaluate left ventricular function, left atrial size, potential cardiac sources of emboli, or the possibility of bacterial endocarditis, or those ordered in patients who, according to the ordering physician, had undergone or would undergo catheterization regardless of the results of echocardiography) were less likely than the 105 Group II M-mode echocardiograms (those ordered to evaluate possible mitral valve prolapse, hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, valvular function, or the pericardium) to be ordered appropriately, to provide helpful information, or to provide crucial results. Group I echocardiograms had reviewer-assessed appropriate management impact in only one case (1 percent) compared with a 13 percent rate of management impact for Group II M-mode echocardiograms (p less than 0.01). Although echocardiography can be accurate and valuable with yields similar to those of other noninvasive procedures, 77 (42 percent) of 182 M-mode echocardiograms in this hospital could be predicted at the time of ordering to be in a low-yield group.