The diagnostic value of a 12-lead electrocardiogram in patients with cardiac tamponade due to a malignant pericardial effusion

Background. Cardiac tamponade can occur when a large amount of fluid, gas, singly or in combination, accumulating within the pericardium, compresses the heart causing circulatory compromise. Although previous investigators have found the 12-lead ECG to have a poor predictive value in diagnosing cardiac tamponade, very few studies have evaluated it as a follow up tool for ruling in or ruling out tamponade in patients with previously diagnosed malignant pericardial effusions. ^ Methods. 127 patients with malignant pericardial effusions at the MD Anderson Cancer Center were included in this retrospective study. While 83 of these patients had a cardiac tamponade diagnosed by echocardiographic criteria (Gold standard), 44 did not. We computed the sensitivity (Se), specificity (Sp), positive (PPV) and negative predictive values (NPV) for individual and combinations of ECG abnormalities. Individual ECG abnormalities were also entered singly into a univariate logistic regression model to predict tamponade. ^ Results. For patients with effusions of all sizes, electrical alternans had a Se, Sp, PPV and NPV of 22.61%, 97.61%, 95% and 39.25% respectively. These parameters for low voltage complexes were 55.95%, 74.44%, 81.03%, 46.37% respectively. The presence of all three ECG abnormalities had a Se = 8.33%, Sp = 100%, PPV = 100% and NPV = 35.83% while the presence of at least one of the three ECG abnormalities had a Se = 89.28%, Sp = 46.51%, PPV = 76.53%, NPV = 68.96%. For patients with effusions of all sizes electrical alternans had an OR of 12.28 (1.58–95.17, p = 0.016), while the presence of at least one ECG abnormality had an OR of 7.25 (2.9–18.1, p = 0.000) in predicting tamponade. ^ Conclusions. Although individual ECG abnormalities had low sensitivities, specificities, NPVs and PPVs with the exception of electrical alternans, the presence of at least one of the three ECG abnormalities had a high sensitivity in diagnosing cardiac tamponade. This could point to its potential use as a screening test with a correspondingly high NPV to rule out a diagnosis of tamponade in patients with malignant pericardial effusions. This could save expensive echocardiographic assessments in patients with previously diagnosed pericardial effusions. ^

The performance of human papillomavirus high-risk DNA testing in the screening and diagnostic settings.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to evaluate the performance of the human papillomavirus high-risk DNA test in patients 30 years and older. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Screening (n=835) and diagnosis (n=518) groups were defined based on prior Papanicolaou smear results as part of a clinical trial for cervical cancer detection. We compared the Hybrid Capture II (HCII) test result with the worst histologic report. We used cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) 2/3 or worse as the reference of disease. We calculated sensitivities, specificities, positive and negative likelihood ratios (LR+ and LR-), receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, and areas under the ROC curves for the HCII test. We also considered alternative strategies, including Papanicolaou smear, a combination of Papanicolaou smear and the HCII test, a sequence of Papanicolaou smear followed by the HCII test, and a sequence of the HCII test followed by Papanicolaou smear. RESULTS: For the screening group, the sensitivity was 0.69 and the specificity was 0.93; the area under the ROC curve was 0.81. The LR+ and LR- were 10.24 and 0.34, respectively. For the diagnosis group, the sensitivity was 0.88 and the specificity was 0.78; the area under the ROC curve was 0.83. The LR+ and LR- were 4.06 and 0.14, respectively. Sequential testing showed little or no improvement over the combination testing. CONCLUSIONS: The HCII test in the screening group had a greater LR+ for the detection of CIN 2/3 or worse. HCII testing may be an additional screening tool for cervical cancer in women 30 years and older.

Performance of HbA1c for classifying diabetes and diagnostic threshold for diabetes among the Mexican American border community

Objective. In 2009, the International Expert Committee recommended the use of HbA1c test for diagnosis of diabetes. Although it has been recommended for the diagnosis of diabetes, its precise test performance among Mexican Americans is uncertain. A strong “gold standard” would rely on repeated blood glucose measurement on different days, which is the recommended method for diagnosing diabetes in clinical practice. Our objective was to assess test performance of HbA1c in detecting diabetes and pre-diabetes against repeated fasting blood glucose measurement for the Mexican American population living in United States-Mexico border. Moreover, we wanted to find out a specific and precise threshold value of HbA1c for Diabetes Mellitus (DM) and pre-diabetes for this high-risk population which might assist in better diagnosis and better management of patient diabetes. ^ Research design and methods. We used CCHC dataset for our study. In 2004, the Cameron County Hispanic Cohort (CCHC), now numbering 2,574, was established drawn from randomly selected households on the basis of 2000 Census tract data. The CCHC study randomly selected a subset of people (aged 18-64 years) in CCHC cohort households to determine the influence of SES on diabetes and obesity. Among the participants in Cohort-2000, 67.15% are female; all are Hispanic. ^ Individuals were defined as having diabetes mellitus (Fasting plasma glucose [FPG] ≥ 126 mg/dL or pre-diabetes (100 ≤ FPG < 126 mg/dL). HbA1c test performance was evaluated using receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves. Moreover, change-point models were used to determine HbA1c thresholds compatible with FPG thresholds for diabetes and pre-diabetes. ^ Results. When assessing Fasting Plasma Glucose (FPG) is used to detect diabetes, the sensitivity and specificity of HbA1c≥ 6.5% was 75% and 87% respectively (area under the curve 0.895). Additionally, when assessing FPG to detect pre-diabetes, the sensitivity and specificity of HbA1c≥ 6.0% (ADA recommended threshold) was 18% and 90% respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of HbA1c≥ 5.7% (International Expert Committee recommended threshold) for detecting pre-diabetes was 31% and 78% respectively. ROC analyses suggest HbA1c as a sound predictor of diabetes mellitus (area under the curve 0.895) but a poorer predictor for pre-diabetes (area under the curve 0.632). ^ Conclusions. Our data support the current recommendations for use of HbA1c in the diagnosis of diabetes for the Mexican American population as it has shown reasonable sensitivity, specificity and accuracy against repeated FPG measures. However, use of HbA1c may be premature for detecting pre-diabetes in this specific population because of the poor sensitivity with FPG. It might be the case that HbA1c is differentiating the cases more effectively who are at risk of developing diabetes. Following these pre-diabetic individuals for a longer-term for the detection of incident diabetes may lead to more confirmatory result.^