PetCaseFinder

Peer-reviewed veterinary case report

Detecting heart murmurs in dogs with electronic vs traditional

By Vörös, K et al.·Published in Tierarztliche Praxis. Ausgabe K, Kleintiere/Heimtiere·2012·Department and Clinic Internal Medicine·View original on PubMed

PetCaseFinder translated the abstract of this peer-reviewed paper into plain English so pet owners can read it. We do not publish original research — every detail traces back to the citation above. How we work →

Original publication title: Comparison of conventional and sensor-based electronic stethoscopes in detecting cardiac murmurs of dogs.

Species:
dog

Plain-English summary

A group of 21 dogs suspected of having heart murmurs were examined using both traditional and electronic stethoscopes to see which was better at detecting these issues. The electronic stethoscope was found to be much more effective, correctly identifying all murmurs in experienced hands and significantly more in less experienced hands compared to the traditional stethoscope. This suggests that using both types of stethoscopes together could provide the best results for diagnosing heart murmurs in dogs.

People also search for: dog heart murmur symptoms · electronic stethoscope for dogs · how to detect heart problems in dogs

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Cardiac auscultation is one of the most important parts of the cardiological examination traditionally performed with acoustic stethoscopes. The aim of this study was to compare the sensitivities and the diagnostic capabilities of traditional and electronic stethoscopes in detecting canine heart murmurs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study was performed on 21 dogs referred for cardiologic examination with suspected heart murmurs. Six out of these dogs had cardiac murmurs bilaterally. Cardiac auscultation was performed independently by a final-year veterinary student (AB=I1) and by an experienced clinician (KV=I2), both using a traditional and a Welch Allyn Meditron electronic sensor-based stethoscope. Final diagnoses were established by echocardiography and by digital phonocardiography. RESULTS: Correct detection of a murmur was made by I1 with a traditional stethoscope in 20/27 (74.0%) of the suspected murmurs (p=0.30, kappa[κ] =0.2) and with the electronic stethoscope in 26/27 (96.3%), respectively (p=0.0013, κ=0.75). I2 correctly detected the murmurs with the traditional stethoscope in 25/27 (92.6%) cases (p=0.0013, κ=0.75) and with the electronic stethoscope in all 27/27 (100%) cases (p=0.00012, κ=1). Agreements of murmur intensity gradings between traditional and electronic stethoscopes were highly significant (I1: p=6.9´10⁻⁸; κ=0.79), (I2: p=5.2´10⁻¹¹; κ=0.92). When grading the murmurs with the traditional stethoscope, there was a significant agreement between I1 and I2 (p=2.9´10⁻⁷; κ=0.79), being even higher with the electronic stethoscope (p=1.1´10⁻¹¹; κ=0.92). CONCLUSION: The electronic stethoscope was more sensitive than the traditional one in detecting and grading cardiac murmurs being especially useful for I1 with less experience. However, it can be suggested to use a traditional and an electronic stethoscopes simultaneously to optimally utilize their advantages.

Find similar cases for your pet

PetCaseFinder finds other peer-reviewed reports of pets with the same symptoms, plus a plain-English summary of what was tried across them.

Search related cases →

Original publication on PubMed: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22526814/