“…An online survey via Twitter, Facebook and Reddit received 328 responses between 24 July and 22 August 2016, and the results showed that only about half of the respondents were able to correctly identify proper locations for heart sound collection. Therefore, studying the effectiveness of auscultation area selection is crucial to the identification of heart diseases [18].…”
Cardiac Auscultation is widely used in the diagnosis of congenital heart disease (CHD) due to its non-invasive and cost-effective procedure. Heart sound analysis can provide effective auxiliary diagnosis information and aid in automatically screening patients. However, there are different signal spectrum characteristics in different auscultation locations, and there are no unified standards in the selection of auscultation locations during the heart sound analysis. This paper addresses the problem of auscultation locations and the selection of spectrum characteristics in the heart sound identification of CHD patients. 385 cases of normal and CHD heart sound signals were used to extract three groups of representative spectral features: Power Spectral Density (PSD), Mel-Frequency Cepstrum Coefficients (MFCCs) and Instantaneous Frequency Cumulative(IFC) from five different auscultation locations which are Aortic area(A), Pulmonic area(P), Tricuspid area(T), Mitral area(M), and Second aortic valve area(E). Significance detections based on p-value and Gaussian kernel support vector machine (SVM) were used to test these spectrum characteristics in five auscultation locations. The results show that the spectrum energy and the difference of auscultation areas concentrated within the frequency range of 20-150Hz. There is no statistical significance in terms of the spectrum characteristics of CHD in area A (p>0.05) compared with the statistical significance in other auscultation areas (p<0.01). The classification performance of the SVM method that uses spectrum characteristics of area E was the best overall. The experiment and analysis results show that, in CHD heart sound recognition, E-area signals have the best recognition effect, signals from TMP areas could be used as a reference, and A-area signals should be used with cautions. This discovery provides a practical guide to the clinical auscultation and signal processing of Congenital Heart Disease.
“…An online survey via Twitter, Facebook and Reddit received 328 responses between 24 July and 22 August 2016, and the results showed that only about half of the respondents were able to correctly identify proper locations for heart sound collection. Therefore, studying the effectiveness of auscultation area selection is crucial to the identification of heart diseases [18].…”
Cardiac Auscultation is widely used in the diagnosis of congenital heart disease (CHD) due to its non-invasive and cost-effective procedure. Heart sound analysis can provide effective auxiliary diagnosis information and aid in automatically screening patients. However, there are different signal spectrum characteristics in different auscultation locations, and there are no unified standards in the selection of auscultation locations during the heart sound analysis. This paper addresses the problem of auscultation locations and the selection of spectrum characteristics in the heart sound identification of CHD patients. 385 cases of normal and CHD heart sound signals were used to extract three groups of representative spectral features: Power Spectral Density (PSD), Mel-Frequency Cepstrum Coefficients (MFCCs) and Instantaneous Frequency Cumulative(IFC) from five different auscultation locations which are Aortic area(A), Pulmonic area(P), Tricuspid area(T), Mitral area(M), and Second aortic valve area(E). Significance detections based on p-value and Gaussian kernel support vector machine (SVM) were used to test these spectrum characteristics in five auscultation locations. The results show that the spectrum energy and the difference of auscultation areas concentrated within the frequency range of 20-150Hz. There is no statistical significance in terms of the spectrum characteristics of CHD in area A (p>0.05) compared with the statistical significance in other auscultation areas (p<0.01). The classification performance of the SVM method that uses spectrum characteristics of area E was the best overall. The experiment and analysis results show that, in CHD heart sound recognition, E-area signals have the best recognition effect, signals from TMP areas could be used as a reference, and A-area signals should be used with cautions. This discovery provides a practical guide to the clinical auscultation and signal processing of Congenital Heart Disease.
This exploratory study addresses the current paucity of knowledge available in UK paramedic practice in relation to cardiac auscultation. There is a recognised lack of data surrounding the efficacy, safety and relevance of patient assessment skills in the pre-hospital setting in general, and cardiac auscultation specifically. This study provides information about current paramedic practice, and provides a basis for further research in this area. An online survey was distributed using convenience and snowball sampling, receiving 328 responses within a 31-day period. The results show that many paramedics rarely, or indeed never, undertake cardiac auscultation and that many lack confidence in recognising normal and abnormal heart sounds. There is also a divided opinion among respondents who provided free-text answers, with some feeling that the skill of cardiac auscultation is vital in pre-hospital care and others firmly disagreeing. This research lays the groundwork for further developments in training, education and continuing professional development for paramedics.
Background: Patients presenting to the ambulance services with cardiovascular complaints are common, and as such, represent a notable proportion of paramedic clinical practice. Numerous texts refer to a system-based approach to cardiovascular assessment, however the application
by paramedics is scarcely researched. As such, this article aims to quantify paramedic confidence levels regarding an examination of a patient with a cardiovascular complaint.Methods: An online cross-sectional survey was conducted, recruiting paramedics from one ambulance trust
within the United Kingdom and analysing their confidence levels of assessing a patient with a cardiovascular complaint. Paramedics were recruited using purposive sampling and asked to complete an online questionnaire exploring their confidence levels among cardiovascular assessments, which
were subsequently quantified to summarise confidence levels expressed by these respondents.Results: A total of 331 responses across one ambulance service were received in April 2021. Of these, 90.3% (299/331) reported a high level of confidence with the general cardiovascular assessment.
Throughout all individual elements of assessment, over 50% of respondents indicated they feel confident with the examination, except when assessing heaves and thrills where 56.2% (185/329) and 55.1% (182/330) of respondents disagreed with feeling confident, respectively. A strong correlation
was seen throughout the results between confidence levels and the reported occurrence of each type of assessment, which was demonstrated using Spearman’s rank-order correlation.Conclusions: High confidence levels for a cardiovascular examination were reported among the respondents
of this survey. Paramedics have shown good confidence among all areas of a cardiovascular assessment, except with palpating the chest for heaves and thrills. There is an evident link between reported confidence levels and how often these assessments are completed, however there is still room
for additional training and research within this area.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.