Peer-reviewed veterinary case report
Using focused heart ultrasound to find causes of breathing trouble
By Hezzell, Melanie J et al.·Published in Journal of veterinary emergency and critical care (San Antonio, Tex. : 2001)·2020·Department of Clinical Studies - Philadelphia, United States·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 We do not publish original research — every detail traces back to the citation above.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: Investigation of focused cardiac ultrasound in the emergency room for differentiation of respiratory and cardiac causes of respiratory distress in dogs.
- Species:
- dog
Plain-English summary
A group of 38 dogs with breathing problems were evaluated to see if a special heart ultrasound (called FOCUS) could help determine if their issues were due to heart problems or other causes. The dogs were assessed using their medical history, physical exams, and the FOCUS test. While the ultrasound did help improve the accuracy of diagnosing heart-related issues slightly, it didn't make a significant difference compared to just using the medical history and physical exam alone. Overall, the study found that the combination of these methods was still effective in identifying the cause of the dogs' respiratory distress.
People also search for: dog breathing problems diagnosis · heart ultrasound for dogs · respiratory distress in dogs treatment
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether focused cardiac ultrasound (FOCUS) performed by emergency and critical care (ECC) specialists or residents in training improves differentiation of cardiac (C) versus non-cardiac (NC) causes of respiratory distress in dogs compared to medical history and physical examination alone. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study (May 2014 to February 2016). SETTING: University hospital. ANIMALS: Thirty-eight dogs presenting with respiratory distress. INTERVENTIONS: FOCUS. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Medical history, physical examination, and FOCUS were obtained at presentation. Emergency and critical care clinicians, blinded to any radiographic or echocardiographic data, categorized each patient (C vs NC) before and after FOCUS. Thoracic radiography (within 3 h) and echocardiography (within 24 h) were performed. Percent agreement was calculated against a reference diagnosis that relied on agreement of a board-certified cardiologist and ECC specialist with access to all diagnostic test results. Reference diagnosis included 22 dogs with cardiac and 13 dogs with noncardiac causes of respiratory distress. In 3 dogs a reference diagnosis was not established. Prior to FOCUS, positive and negative percent agreement to detect cardiac causes was 90.9% (95% CI, 70.8-98.9) and 53.9% (25.1-80.8), respectively. Overall agreement occurred in 27 of 35 dogs (77.1%). Two C and 6 NC cases were incorrectly categorized. Following FOCUS, positive and negative percent agreement to detect cardiac causes was 95.5% (77.2-99.9) and 69.2% (38.6-90.9), respectively. Overall agreement occurred in 30 of 35 dogs (85.7%). Three dogs with discrepant pre-FOCUS diagnoses were correctly re-categorized post-FOCUS. One C and 4 NC cases remained incorrectly categorized. No correctly categorized dogs were incorrectly re-categorized following FOCUS. The proportions of dogs correctly classified pre- versus post-FOCUS were not significantly different (P = 0.25). CONCLUSIONS: FOCUS did not significantly improve differentiation of C vs NC causes of respiratory distress compared to medical history and physical examination alone.
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/32067327/