Francesco Guerrini
Current Organizations / Institutes
The organizations/institutes from the scholar's latest article
Research Subjects
Francesco Guerrini has a total of 7 co-authors. Here are the top co-authors by number of shared publications:
- Eustachio Agricola
Cardiovascular Imaging Unit, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, 20132 Milan, Italy
1 shared publication - Giovanna Giannotti
Division of Cardiology, University of Siena, Italy
1 shared publication - Maurizio Galderisi
Department of Advanced Biomedical Sciences, Federico II University Hospital, Naples, Italy
1 shared publication - Piercarlo Ballo
Cardiology Unit, S. Maria Annunziata Hospital, Florence, Italy
1 shared publication - Riccardo Barbati
Division of Cardiology, University of Siena, Italy
1 shared publication - Sergio Mondillo
Department of Medical Biotechnologies, University of Siena, Italy
1 shared publication
Latest Publications
- Open Access
- 24 March 2005
- Published by Springer Nature in Cardiovascular Ultrasound
- Vol. 3 (1) , 7
Hand-held echocardiography: added value in clinical cardiological assessment
Background: The ultrasonic industry has recently produced echocardiographic Hand Held Devices (miniaturized, compact and battery-equipped echocardiographic systems). Their potential usefulness has been successfully assessed in a wide range of clinical conditions. The aim of the study was to verify if the routine use of a basic model of echocardiographic Hand Held Device (HHD) could be an important diagnostic tool during outpatient cardiologic consulting or in non-cardiologic hospital sections. Methods: 87 consecutive patients were included in this study; they underwent routine physical examination, resting ECG and echocardiographic evaluation using a basic model of HHD performed by trained echocardiographists; the cardiologist, whenever possible, formulated a diagnosis. The percentage of subjects in whom the findings were judged reasonably adequate for final diagnostic and therapeutic conclusions was used to quantify the "conclusiveness" of HHD evaluation. Successively, all patients underwent a second echocardiographic evaluation, by an examiner with similar echocardiographic experience, performed using a Standard Echo Device (SED). The agreement between the first and the second echocardiographic exam was also assessed. Results: Mean examination time was 6.7 ± 1.5 min. using HHD vs. 13.6 ± 2.4 min. using SED. The echocardiographic examination performed using HHD was considered satisfactory in 74/87 patients (85.1% conclusiveness). Among the 74 patients for whom the examination was conclusive, the diagnosis was concordant with that obtained with the SED examination in 62 cases (83.8% agreement). Conclusion: HHD may generally allow a reliable cardiologic basic evaluation of outpatient or subjects admitted to non-cardiologic sections, more specifically in particular subgroups of patients, with a gain in terms of time, shortening patient waiting lists and reducing healthy costs.
- 24 March 2005
- Published by Springer Nature in Cardiovascular Ultrasound
- Vol. 3 (1) , 7
Open AccessHand-held echocardiography: added value in clinical cardiological assessment
Background: The ultrasonic industry has recently produced echocardiographic Hand Held Devices (miniaturized, compact and battery-equipped echocardiographic systems). Their potential usefulness has been successfully assessed in a wide range of clinical conditions. The aim of the study was to verify if the routine use of a basic model of echocardiographic Hand Held Device (HHD) could be an important diagnostic tool during outpatient cardiologic consulting or in non-cardiologic hospital sections. Methods: 87 consecutive patients were included in this study; they underwent routine physical examination, resting ECG and echocardiographic evaluation using a basic model of HHD performed by trained echocardiographists; the cardiologist, whenever possible, formulated a diagnosis. The percentage of subjects in whom the findings were judged reasonably adequate for final diagnostic and therapeutic conclusions was used to quantify the "conclusiveness" of HHD evaluation. Successively, all patients underwent a second echocardiographic evaluation, by an examiner with similar echocardiographic experience, performed using a Standard Echo Device (SED). The agreement between the first and the second echocardiographic exam was also assessed. Results: Mean examination time was 6.7 ± 1.5 min. using HHD vs. 13.6 ± 2.4 min. using SED. The echocardiographic examination performed using HHD was considered satisfactory in 74/87 patients (85.1% conclusiveness). Among the 74 patients for whom the examination was conclusive, the diagnosis was concordant with that obtained with the SED examination in 62 cases (83.8% agreement). Conclusion: HHD may generally allow a reliable cardiologic basic evaluation of outpatient or subjects admitted to non-cardiologic sections, more specifically in particular subgroups of patients, with a gain in terms of time, shortening patient waiting lists and reducing healthy costs.