Agreement between Handheld and Standard Echocardiography for Diagnosis of Latent Rheumatic Heart Disease in Brazilian Schoolchildren from High-Prevalence Settings (Agreement between Screening and Standard Echo for RHD).

Introduction: Handheld echocardiography (echo) is the tool of choice for rheumatic heart disease (RHD) screening. We aimed to assess the agreement between screening and standard echo for latent RHD diagnosis in schoolchildren from an endemic setting. Methods: Over 14 months, 3 nonphysicians used handheld machines and the 2012 WHF Criteria to determine RHD prevalence in consented schoolchildren from Brazilian low-income public schools. Studies were interpreted by telemedicine by 3 experts (Brazil, US). RHD-positive children (borderline/definite) and those with congenital heart disease (CHD) were referred for standard echo, acquired and interpreted by a cardiologist. Agreement between screening and standard echo, by WHF subgroups, was assessed. Results: 1390 students were screened in 6 schools, with 110 (7.9%, 95% CI 6.5-9.5) being screen positive (14 ± 2 years, 72% women). Among 16 cases initially diagnosed as definite RHD, 11 (69%) were confirmed, 4 (25%) reclassified to borderline, and 1 to normal. Among 79 cases flagged as borderline RHD, 19 (24%) were confirmed, 50 (63%) reclassified to normal, 8 (10%) reclassified as definite RHD, and 2 had mild CHD. Considering the 4 diagnostic categories, kappa was 0.18. In patients with borderline RHD reclassified to non-RHD, the most frequent WHF criterion was B (isolated mitral regurgitation, 64%), followed by A (2 mitral valve morphological features, 31%). In 1 patient with definite RHD reclassified to normal, the WHF criterion was D (borderline RHD in aortic and mitral valves). After standard echo, RHD prevalence was 3.2% (95% CI 2.3-4.2). Conclusions: Although practical, RHD screening with handheld devices tends to overestimate prevalence.

Reasons for disagreement between screening and standard echocardiography in primary care: data from the PROVAR + study : Disagreement between screening and standard echo.

We aimed to evaluate the reasons for disagreement between screening echocardiography (echo), acquired by nonexperts, and standard echo in the Brazilian primary care (PC). Over 20 months, 22 PC workers were trained on simplified handheld (GE VSCAN) echo protocols. Screening groups, consisting of patients aged 17-20, 35-40 and 60-65 years, and patients referred for clinical indications underwent focused echo. Studies were remotelyinterpreted in US and Brazil, and those diagnosed with major or severe HD were referred for standard echoperformed by an expert. Major HD was defined as moderate to severe valve disease, ventriculardysfunction/hypertrophy, pericardial effusion or wall-motion abnormalities. A random sample of exams wasselected for evaluation of variables accounting for disagreement. A sample of 768 patients was analyzed, 651(85%) in the referred group. Quality issues were reported in 5.8%, and the random Kappa for major HD between screening and standard echo was 0.51. The most frequent reasons for disagreement were: overestimation of mitral regurgitation (MR) (17.9%, N=138), left ventricular (LV) dysfunction (15.7%, N=121), aortic regurgitation (AR) (15.2%, N=117), LV hypertrophy (13.5%, N=104) and tricuspid regurgitation (12.7%, N=98). Misdiagnosis of mitral and aortic morphological abnormalities was observed in 12.4% and 3.0%, and underestimation of AR and MR occurred in 4.6% and 11.1%. Among 257 patients with suspected mild/moderate MR, 129 were reclassified to normal. In conclusion, although screening echo with task-shifting in PC is a promising tool in low-income areas, estimation of valve regurgitation and LV function and size account for considerable disagreement with standard exams.