Explore the vast range of titles available.

IntroductionThis narrative review focusing on critical care echocardiography (CCE) has been written by a group of experts in the field, with the aim of outlining the state of the art in CCE in the 10 years after its official recognition and definition.ResultsIn the last 10 years, CCE has become an essential branch of critical care ultrasonography and has gained general acceptance. Its use, both as a diagnostic tool and for hemodynamic monitoring, has increased markedly, influencing contemporary cardiorespiratory management. Recent studies suggest that the use of CCE may have a positive impact on outcomes. CCE may be used in critically ill patients in many different clinical situations, both in their early evaluation of in the emergency department and during intensive care unit (ICU) admission and stay. CCE has also proven its utility in perioperative settings, as well as in the management of mechanical circulatory support. CCE may be performed with very simple diagnostic objectives. This application, referred to as basic CCE, does not require a high level of training. Advanced CCE, on the other hand, uses ultrasonography for full evaluation of cardiac function and hemodynamics, and requires extensive training, with formal certification now available. Indeed, recent years have seen the creation of worldwide certification in advanced CCE. While transthoracic CCE remains the most commonly used method, the transesophageal route has gained importance, particularly for intubated and ventilated patients.ConclusionCCE is now widely accepted by the critical care community as a valuable tool in the ICU and emergency department, and in perioperative settings.

Objectives: Myocardial perfusion scintigraphy (MPS) is a well-established method for diagnosing coronary artery disease and risk stratification of individuals with chest pain. However, while MPS has high sensitivity and specificity for the detection of significant coronary artery disease, it has some drawbacks due to several technical difficulties. We suggest that aortic stiffness indexes measured by echocardiography, which is a well-known marker of atherosclerotic burden, may improve the equivocal test results obtained in MPS. Materials and Methods: We prospectively enrolled 149 consecutive patients between the ages of 18 and 65 years without any previous cardiovascular disease with suspected coronary artery disease, who had undergone both SPECT MPS using Technetium-99m-sestamibi (99mTc MIBI) and transthoracic echocardiography between November 2013 and June 2014. Subjects were divided into three categories according to MPS results as normal, equivocal and ischemic groups. Results: Aortic stiffness index (ASI) and aortic distensibility (AD) of the normal and equivocal groups were similar, and the ischemic group had higher ASI values compared to the normal and equivocal groups. The equivocal group had statistically lower ASI and higher AD values compared to the ischemia group (p <0.001 and <0.001). Optimal threshold cut off point for ASI to differentiate normal MPS result from MPS with ischemia in any LV wall was calculated by ROC analysis. ASI value of 3.05 was found to be cut-off value with 98% sensitivity and 87% specificity to detect ischemia (AUC=0.953 with 95% CI: 0.906 to 0.981 and p <0,001). If ASI value of >3.05 was accepted as abnormal, the frequency of abnormal ASI in the normal, equivocal, and ischemia groups were 11%, 19%, and 98%, respectively. The equivocal group had similar number of patients with abnormal ASI compared to the normal group (p=0.262) while it had statistically a lower number of patients with abnormal ASI than the ischemia group (p<0.001) Conclusion: However, aortic stiffness and aortic AD indexes alone cannot diagnose coronary artery disease (CAD), but may help to discriminate patients with CAD from those without CAD whose MPS results are equivocal.

Success of atrioventricular septal defect repair is defined by post-operative atrioventricular valve function and presence of residual intracardiac shunting. We evaluated differences in interpretation of atrioventricular valve function and residual defects between transesophageal and transthoracic echocardiography in a contemporary cohort of infants undergoing atrioventricular septal defect repair. Among 106 patients, we identified an increase in left and right atrioventricular valve regurgitation, right atrioventricular valve inflow gradient, and increased detection rate of residual intracardiac shunting on transthoracic compared to transesophageal echocardiograms, although residual shunts identified only on transthoracic echocardiogram were not haemodynamically significant. Findings may help inform expectation of post-operative transthoracic echocardiogram findings based on intraoperative assessment.

ObjectiveLeft atrial (LA) maximum volume (LAVmax) is an indicator of left ventricular (LV) diastolic function. However, LAVmax is also influenced by systolic events, whereas the LA minimum volume (LAVmin) is directly exposed to LV pressure. The authors hypothesised that LAVmin may be a better correlate of LV diastolic function than LAVmax.DesignCross-sectional.SettingUniversity hospital.Patients357 participants from a community-based cohort study.MethodsLA volumes and reservoir function, measured as total LA emptying volume (LAEV) and LA emptying fraction (LAEF), were assessed by real-time three-dimensional echocardiography. LV diastolic function was assessed by trans-mitral early (E) and late (A) Doppler velocities and mitral early diastolic velocity by tissue-Doppler (e'). LV systolic function was assessed by LV ejection fraction (LVEF) and global longitudinal strain (GLS) by speckle-tracking.ResultsLAVmin significantly increased with worsening diastolic dysfunction (p<0.001), whereas the increase in LAVmax was less pronounced (p=0.07). LAEV and LAEF decreased with worsening diastolic dysfunction (both p<0.001). In linear regressions, LAVmin and LAVmax were significant predictors of E/e', with higher parameter estimates for LAVmin. In multivariate models, LAVmin resulted strongly associated with E/e' (β=0.45, p<0.001), whereas LAVmax was not (β=−0.16, p=0.08). LA reservoir function was better associated with GLS than LVEF. In multivariate analyses, GLS was significantly associated with LAVmax (β=−0.15, p=0.002), LAEV (β=−0.37, p<0.001) and LAEF (β=−0.28, p<0.001) but not with LAVmin.ConclusionsLAVmin is a better correlate of LV diastolic function than LAVmax. The impact of LV longitudinal systolic function on LA reservoir function might explain the weaker relation between LAVmax and LV diastolic function.

We aim to evaluate the reliability and consistency of measuring the aortic valve area (AVA) using 3-dimensional (3D) transesophageal echocardiography and compare it with invasive and noninvasive methods using a continuity equation (CE). Measurements were taken from 119 patients with different severity of aortic stenosis and with normal aortic valve who underwent elective transesophageal echocardiography encompassing the whole spectrum of aortic opening. Three methods were compared to determine AVA. First, the effective AVA was calculated with the standard CE, where the left ventricular outflow tract area was calculated from its 2-dimensional diameter (AVA-CEstd). Second, a modified CE method (AVA-CEmod) was used, in which the left ventricular outflow tract area was measured using 3D-multiplane reconstruction. Third, the geometric AVA was directly measured using 3D-multiplane reconstruction planimetry (AVA-3D). Interobserver and intraobserver variability were analyzed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). The values were measured by two blinded readers for interobserver variability and by one observer on the same dataset. AVA-3D was significantly larger than AVA-CEmod and AVA-CEstd (1.87 ± 1.00 cm2 vs 1.81 ± 0.92 cm2 p = 0.03 and 1.87 ± 1.00 cm2 vs 1.71 ± 0.85 cm2 p <0.001). However, in the subset of patients with AVA-3D <1.5 cm2, there was no significant difference between AVA-3D and AVA-CEmod (1.06 ± 0.24 vs 1.08 ± 0.26 cm2, paired t test: t = 0.77, degree of freedom = 58, p = 0.44). The ICC between the measurements of AVA-3D and AVA-CEmod (ICC 0.979), and AVA-3D and AVA- CEstd (ICC 0.940), were excellent. AVA-3D delivers very similar results as compared with more established echocardiographic parameters. The difference between effective and geometric AVA did not appear to be clinically relevant in patients with a higher degree of stenosis.

BackgroundThe diagnosis of cardiac amyloidosis (CA) is challenging owing to vague symptomatology and non-specific echocardiographic findings.ObjectiveTo describe regional patterns in longitudinal strain (LS) using two-dimensional speckle-tracking echocardiography in CA and to test the hypothesis that regional differences would help differentiate CA from other causes of increased left ventricular (LV) wall thickness.Methods and results55 consecutive patients with CA were compared with 30 control patients with LV hypertrophy (n=15 with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, n=15 with aortic stenosis). A relative apical LS of 1.0, defined using the equation (average apical LS/(average basal LS + mid-LS)), was sensitive (93%) and specific (82%) in differentiating CA from controls (area under the curve 0.94). In a logistic regression multivariate analysis, relative apical LS was the only parameter predictive of CA (p=0.004).ConclusionsCA is characterised by regional variations in LS from base to apex. A relative ‘apical sparing’ pattern of LS is an easily recognisable, accurate and reproducible method of differentiating CA from other causes of LV hypertrophy.