title: [From cardiac auscultation to echo-Doppler. Limitations of both methods].
abstract: Physiological tricuspid and pulmonary regurgitations are very often found by Echo-Doppler. They are generally slight, inaudible and devoid of significance. Tricuspid insufficiency nevertheless has the great advantage of enabling the calculation of pulmonary pressures. Auscultation is a good method for the diagnosis of rheumatic mitral insufficiency or related to prolapse, but is not reliable in other situations. Doppler is an excellent method for the qualitative and etiological diagnosis of mitral insufficiency but enables only semi-quantification. It also has the disadvantage of discovering minimal mitral insufficiency, the significance of which is uncertain. In contrast to auscultation, Doppler enables precise quantification in mitral stenosis. Auscultation is a good method for the diagnosis of aortic valve disease with the exception of slight insufficiency and stenosis in the elderly. Doppler enables the quantification of stenosis and semi-quantification of insufficiency. The existence of physiological aortic regurgitation is by no means certain. In conclusion, auscultation remains an important tool in cardiological diagnosis but has notable limitations. Echo-Doppler is a major advance but it is important to be aware of its limitations.
authors.affiliation: Service de Cardiologie, Hôpital de la Tour, Meyrin-Genève, Suisse.
authors.forename: A
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Bloch
mesh_terms: D015150:Echocardiography, Doppler / Q000379:methods*; D005069:Evaluation Studies as Topic; D006326:Heart Auscultation / Q000379:methods*; D006349:Heart Valve Diseases / Q000175:diagnosis* / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging; D006801:Humans
vernacular_title: De l'auscultation cardique à l'echo-Doppler. Limites des deux méthodes.