即时超声对心源性休克患者的诊断准确性——荟萃分析和系统评价。

IF 1.1
Circulation reports Pub Date : 2025-07-16 eCollection Date: 2025-09-10 DOI:10.1253/circrep.CR-25-0105
Takumi Osawa, Naoki Nakayama, Tomoko Ishizu, Toru Kondo, Takahiro Nakashima, Takeshi Yamamoto, Hiroyuki Hanada, Katsutaka Hashiba, Jin Kirigaya, Yumiko Hosoya, Aya Katasako-Yabumoto, Yusuke Okazaki, Masahiro Yamamoto, Kazuo Sakamoto, Marina Arai, Akihito Tanaka, Kunihiro Matsuo, Junichi Yamaguchi, Toshiaki Mano, Sunao Kojima, Teruo Noguchi, Yasushi Tsujimoto, Migaku Kikuchi, Toshikazu Funazaki, Yoshio Tahara, Hiroshi Nonogi, Tetsuya Matoba
{"title":"即时超声对心源性休克患者的诊断准确性——荟萃分析和系统评价。","authors":"Takumi Osawa, Naoki Nakayama, Tomoko Ishizu, Toru Kondo, Takahiro Nakashima, Takeshi Yamamoto, Hiroyuki Hanada, Katsutaka Hashiba, Jin Kirigaya, Yumiko Hosoya, Aya Katasako-Yabumoto, Yusuke Okazaki, Masahiro Yamamoto, Kazuo Sakamoto, Marina Arai, Akihito Tanaka, Kunihiro Matsuo, Junichi Yamaguchi, Toshiaki Mano, Sunao Kojima, Teruo Noguchi, Yasushi Tsujimoto, Migaku Kikuchi, Toshikazu Funazaki, Yoshio Tahara, Hiroshi Nonogi, Tetsuya Matoba","doi":"10.1253/circrep.CR-25-0105","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Cardiogenic shock, cardiac tamponade, and pulmonary embolism are critical conditions in cardiovascular emergencies, characterized by high mortality rates. Early diagnosis and treatment are essential to improve outcomes. Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) has emerged as a noninvasive tool for evaluating shock. However, further assessment through the latest meta-analyses is necessary to comprehensively evaluate its diagnostic accuracy in cardiogenic emergencies. Therefore, in this study, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of POCUS in patients with cardiogenic and obstructive shock.</p><p><strong>Methods and results: </strong>Up to December 31, 2023, we systematically reviewed 9 studies reporting all 4 values (true positive, false positive, false negative, and true negative) published in the PubMed, Web of Science, and CENTRAL databases: 8 studies assessed cardiac shock, and 8 assessed obstructive shock separately. For cardiac shock, the pooled sensitivity was 86.1% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 71.5-93.9%), and specificity was 95.8% (95% CI: 94.0-97.2%). For obstructive shock, the pooled sensitivity was 77.5% (95% CI: 62.5-87.6%) and specificity was 97.6% (95% CI: 93.9-99.1%). The area under the curve was 0.96 (95% CI: 0.95-0.98) for cardiogenic shock and 0.94 (95% CI: 0.88-0.98) for obstructive shock.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This meta-analysis suggested that POCUS has reasonable diagnostic accuracy for cardiogenic and obstructive shock, particularly with high pooled specificity.</p>","PeriodicalId":94305,"journal":{"name":"Circulation reports","volume":"7 9","pages":"727-734"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12419987/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Diagnostic Accuracy of Point-of-Care Ultrasound for Patients With Cardiogenic Shock - A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review.\",\"authors\":\"Takumi Osawa, Naoki Nakayama, Tomoko Ishizu, Toru Kondo, Takahiro Nakashima, Takeshi Yamamoto, Hiroyuki Hanada, Katsutaka Hashiba, Jin Kirigaya, Yumiko Hosoya, Aya Katasako-Yabumoto, Yusuke Okazaki, Masahiro Yamamoto, Kazuo Sakamoto, Marina Arai, Akihito Tanaka, Kunihiro Matsuo, Junichi Yamaguchi, Toshiaki Mano, Sunao Kojima, Teruo Noguchi, Yasushi Tsujimoto, Migaku Kikuchi, Toshikazu Funazaki, Yoshio Tahara, Hiroshi Nonogi, Tetsuya Matoba\",\"doi\":\"10.1253/circrep.CR-25-0105\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Cardiogenic shock, cardiac tamponade, and pulmonary embolism are critical conditions in cardiovascular emergencies, characterized by high mortality rates. Early diagnosis and treatment are essential to improve outcomes. Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) has emerged as a noninvasive tool for evaluating shock. However, further assessment through the latest meta-analyses is necessary to comprehensively evaluate its diagnostic accuracy in cardiogenic emergencies. Therefore, in this study, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of POCUS in patients with cardiogenic and obstructive shock.</p><p><strong>Methods and results: </strong>Up to December 31, 2023, we systematically reviewed 9 studies reporting all 4 values (true positive, false positive, false negative, and true negative) published in the PubMed, Web of Science, and CENTRAL databases: 8 studies assessed cardiac shock, and 8 assessed obstructive shock separately. For cardiac shock, the pooled sensitivity was 86.1% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 71.5-93.9%), and specificity was 95.8% (95% CI: 94.0-97.2%). For obstructive shock, the pooled sensitivity was 77.5% (95% CI: 62.5-87.6%) and specificity was 97.6% (95% CI: 93.9-99.1%). The area under the curve was 0.96 (95% CI: 0.95-0.98) for cardiogenic shock and 0.94 (95% CI: 0.88-0.98) for obstructive shock.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This meta-analysis suggested that POCUS has reasonable diagnostic accuracy for cardiogenic and obstructive shock, particularly with high pooled specificity.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":94305,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Circulation reports\",\"volume\":\"7 9\",\"pages\":\"727-734\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12419987/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Circulation reports\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1253/circrep.CR-25-0105\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/9/10 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Circulation reports","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1253/circrep.CR-25-0105","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/9/10 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:心源性休克、心包填塞和肺栓塞是心血管急症的关键条件,其特点是死亡率高。早期诊断和治疗对于改善预后至关重要。即时超声(POCUS)已成为一种评估休克的无创工具。然而,需要通过最新的荟萃分析进一步评估,以全面评估其在心源性急诊中的诊断准确性。因此,在本研究中,我们进行了系统回顾和荟萃分析,以评估POCUS在心源性和阻塞性休克患者中的诊断准确性。方法和结果:截至2023年12月31日,我们系统地回顾了发表在PubMed、Web of Science和CENTRAL数据库的9项研究,报告了所有4种值(真阳性、假阳性、假阴性和真阴性):8项研究评估了心源性休克,8项研究分别评估了阻塞性休克。对于心源性休克,合并敏感性为86.1%(95%可信区间[CI]: 71.5-93.9%),特异性为95.8% (95% CI: 94.0-97.2%)。对于梗阻性休克,敏感性为77.5% (95% CI: 62.5-87.6%),特异性为97.6% (95% CI: 93.9-99.1%)。心源性休克的曲线下面积为0.96 (95% CI: 0.95-0.98),阻塞性休克的曲线下面积为0.94 (95% CI: 0.88-0.98)。结论:本荟萃分析提示POCUS对心源性和阻塞性休克具有合理的诊断准确性,特别是具有较高的综合特异性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Diagnostic Accuracy of Point-of-Care Ultrasound for Patients With Cardiogenic Shock - A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review.

Diagnostic Accuracy of Point-of-Care Ultrasound for Patients With Cardiogenic Shock - A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review.

Diagnostic Accuracy of Point-of-Care Ultrasound for Patients With Cardiogenic Shock - A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review.

Diagnostic Accuracy of Point-of-Care Ultrasound for Patients With Cardiogenic Shock - A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review.

Background: Cardiogenic shock, cardiac tamponade, and pulmonary embolism are critical conditions in cardiovascular emergencies, characterized by high mortality rates. Early diagnosis and treatment are essential to improve outcomes. Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) has emerged as a noninvasive tool for evaluating shock. However, further assessment through the latest meta-analyses is necessary to comprehensively evaluate its diagnostic accuracy in cardiogenic emergencies. Therefore, in this study, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of POCUS in patients with cardiogenic and obstructive shock.

Methods and results: Up to December 31, 2023, we systematically reviewed 9 studies reporting all 4 values (true positive, false positive, false negative, and true negative) published in the PubMed, Web of Science, and CENTRAL databases: 8 studies assessed cardiac shock, and 8 assessed obstructive shock separately. For cardiac shock, the pooled sensitivity was 86.1% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 71.5-93.9%), and specificity was 95.8% (95% CI: 94.0-97.2%). For obstructive shock, the pooled sensitivity was 77.5% (95% CI: 62.5-87.6%) and specificity was 97.6% (95% CI: 93.9-99.1%). The area under the curve was 0.96 (95% CI: 0.95-0.98) for cardiogenic shock and 0.94 (95% CI: 0.88-0.98) for obstructive shock.

Conclusions: This meta-analysis suggested that POCUS has reasonable diagnostic accuracy for cardiogenic and obstructive shock, particularly with high pooled specificity.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信