Skip Navigation


European Heart Journal Advance Access originally published online on April 13, 2006
European Heart Journal 2006 27(11):1383; doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehi861
This Article
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
27/11/1383    most recent
ehi861v1
Right arrow E-letters: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Galasko, G.
Right arrow Articles by Senior, R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Galasko, G.
Right arrow Articles by Senior, R.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The European Society of Cardiology 2006. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

What is the most useful and cost-effective strategy to screen for left ventricular systolic dysfunction in clinical practice?: reply

Gavin Galasko

Department of Cardiovascular Medicine
Northwick Park Hospital
Level 9V
St Marks
Watford Road
Harrow
Middlesex HA1 3UJ
UK

Roxy Senior

Department of Cardiovascular Medicine
Northwick Park Hospital
Level 9V
St Marks
Watford Road
Harrow
Middlesex HA1 3UJ
UK
Tel: +44 208 869 2547
Fax: +44 208 864 0075
E-mail address: roxy.senior{at}virgin.net

We agree with many of the comments made by Yamada et al.,1 namely that the ECG and NTproBNP are fundamental tests used in the diagnosis of heart failure and that as tests become cheaper they become more cost-effective. We further agree that our data show that hand-held echocardiography gives the greatest sensitivity, ECGs give intermediate sensitivity, and NTproBNP normal range cuts off the worst sensitivity in detecting left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD).2 We also agree that as screening sensitivity falls, some subjects with the screened-for condition will fail to have it diagnosed. Although we clearly stated that the screening programmes described would miss cases of LVSD, we did not make it clear that this was a function of screening sensitivity, an important point that we are pleased Yamada et al. have emphasized. Thus, NTproBNP-driven screening would leave more subjects with LVSD undiagnosed than ECG- or hand-held echocardiography-driven screening. However, as ECG-driven screening has much lower specificity (thus higher false positive rates) and hand-held echocardiography costs more than NTproBNP per test, our conclusion that NTproBNP or ECG screening prior to hand-held echocardiography prior to traditional echocardiography is the most cost-effective strategy, at both current test costs and future likely test costs, remains correct. Furthermore, despite its lower sensitivity, NTproBNP-driven screening might be justifiable in practice, as subjects with normal NTproBNP levels have extremely low cardiac morbidity and mortality whatever their left ventricular function,3,4 although long-term follow-up of our subjects would be required to confirm this. Finally, we agree that if the price of hand-held echocardiography approached that of the ECG, hand-held echocardiography would clearly become the screening method of choice. However, whether this would ever happen is unclear, and furthermore were this to happen then whether enough fully trained sonographers would be available to accurately screen for LVSD using this technology is also unclear, a major potential future issue.

References

  1. Yamada A, Yamada Y, Okada K. (2006) What is the most cost-effective strategy to screen for left ventricular systolic dysfunction: natriuretic peptides, the electrocardiogram, hand-held echocardiography, traditional echocardiography, or their combination? [Letter]. Eur Heart J in press.
  2. Galasko GI, Barnes SC, Collinson P, Lahiri A, Senior R. (2006) What is the most cost-effective strategy to screen for left ventricular systolic dysfunction: natriuretic peptides, the electrocardiogram, hand--held echocardiography, traditional echocardiography, or their combination? Eur Heart J 27:193–200.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  3. Omland T, Persson A, Ng L, O'Brien R, Karlsson T, Herlitz J, Hartford M, Caidahl K. (2002) N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide and long-term mortality in acute coronary syndromes. Circulation 106:2913–2918.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  4. Groenning BA, Raymond I, Hildebrandt PR, Nilsson JC, Baumann M, Pedersen F. (2004) Diagnostic and prognostic evaluation of left ventricular systolic heart failure by plasma N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide concentrations in a large sample of the general population. Heart 90:297–303.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?



This Article
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
27/11/1383    most recent
ehi861v1
Right arrow E-letters: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Galasko, G.
Right arrow Articles by Senior, R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Galasko, G.
Right arrow Articles by Senior, R.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?