Detection of aortic insufficiency by standard echocardiography, pulsed Doppler echocardiography, and auscultation. A comparison of accuracies

P. A. Grayburn, M. D. Smith, R. Handshoe, B. J. Friedman, A. N. DeMaria

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

65 Scopus citations

Abstract

To determine the relative sensitivity and specificity of noninvasive methods for detecting aortic insufficiency, we compared the accuracy of auscultation, echocardiography, and pulsed Doppler echocardiography in detecting aortic insufficiency in 106 patients in whom the presence or absence of the lesion was shown by supravalvular aortography. The sensitivity and specificity for the diagnosis of aortic regurgitation was 96% and 96% for pulsed Doppler echocardiography, 73% and 92% for auscultation, 43% and 91% for two-dimensional echocardiography, 46% and 81% for anterior mitral leaflet flutter, and 9% and 96% for ventricular septal flutter, respectively. Auscultation was more sensitive than either M-mode or two-dimensional echocardiography in the diagnosis of aortic insufficiency (p < 0.01). Pulsed Doppler echocardiography was significantly more sensitive than auscultation (p < 0.0001) and was positive in 19 patients in whom no murmur was found. Thus, pulsed Doppler echocardiography is the optimal noninvasive marker for aortic insufficiency.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)599-605
Number of pages7
JournalAnnals of Internal Medicine
Volume104
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - 1986

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Internal Medicine

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Detection of aortic insufficiency by standard echocardiography, pulsed Doppler echocardiography, and auscultation. A comparison of accuracies'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this