Assessing children's heart sounds at a distance with digital recordings

John P. Finley, Andrew E. Warren, Geoffrey P. Sharratt, Minoli Amit

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

28 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

OBJECTIVE. The objective of this study was to assess whether computer-stored digital sound recordings can be used to distinguish innocent from pathologic systolic murmurs. METHODS. Recordings of 55 children aged 1 month to 19 years were made remotely with the use of a digital stethoscope and were e-mailed to a computer in our center for later assessment. Eight-second recordings were made by a physician in 2 to 4 locations on the chest. Three cardiologists who were blinded to the diagnosis reviewed the recordings independently using stethophones to assess the splitting of the second heart sound and whether murmurs were innocent or pathologic. Diagnoses were confirmed with echocardiography. RESULTS. Seventeen children had innocent murmurs and 38 had pathologic murmurs. For the 3 cardiologists, sensitivity was 0.87 to 1.0, specificity was 0.82 to 0.88, negative predictive value was 0.75 to 1.0, and positive predictive value was 0.93 to 0.95. Assessment of splitting of second heart sound was highly accurate. CONCLUSIONS. Digital recordings of children's heart sounds allow reliable differentiation between innocent and pathologic murmurs. Use of this technology may allow remote diagnosis of childhood murmurs and avoid the expense and stress of travel to pediatric cardiology centers for some children. Cardiologists who use recordings should assess their diagnostic accuracy before clinical application.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)2322-2325
Number of pages4
JournalPediatrics
Volume118
Issue number6
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Dec 2006
Externally publishedYes

ASJC Scopus Subject Areas

  • Pediatrics, Perinatology, and Child Health

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Assessing children's heart sounds at a distance with digital recordings'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this