BACKGROUND: Assessment of left ventricular function by echocardiography is frequently challenging in mechanically ventilated patients. We evaluated the potential value of contrast-enhanced imaging and tissue harmonic imaging over standard fundamental imaging for endocardial border detection (EBD) in these patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: Fifty patients underwent standard transthoracic 2D echocardiography and were imaged in fundamental and tissue harmonic modes and subsequently with intravenous contrast (Optison). Two echocardiographers reviewed all studies for ease of visualization of endocardial border segments and scoring of wall motion. EBD for each wall segment was graded from 1 to 4 (1 = excellent EBD). Wall motion was scored by a standard 16-segment model and 1 to 5 scale. Studies were categorized as nondiagnostic if 4 of 6 segments in the apical 4-chamber view were either poorly seen or not seen (EBD score 3 or 4). Quantification of ejection fraction was independently performed offline. Visualization of 68% of all segments improved with contrast echocardiography versus 17% improvement with tissue harmonics compared with fundamental mode. Significant improvement (poor/not seen to good/excellent) occurred in 60% of segments with contrast echocardiography versus 18% with tissue harmonics. A total of 850 segments were deemed poor/not seen, 78% of which improved to good/excellent with contrast echocardiography versus 23% with tissue harmonics. Interobserver agreement on EBD was 64% to 70%. Conversion of nondiagnostic to diagnostic studies occurred in 85% of patients with contrast echocardiography versus 15% of patients with tissue harmonics. Scoring of wall motion with fundamental mode, tissue harmonics, and contrast echocardiography was possible in 61%, 74%, and 95% of individual segments, respectively (P <.001). Wall motion scoring was altered in 17% of segments with contrast echocardiography and in 8% with tissue harmonics. Interobserver agreement on wall motion scoring was 84% to 88%. Contrast echocardiography permitted measurement of ejection fraction 45% (P =.003) more often over fundamental mode versus a 27% (P =.09) increase with tissue harmonics. CONCLUSIONS: Contrast echocardiography is superior to tissue harmonic imaging for EBD, wall motion scoring, and quantification of ejection fraction in mechanically ventilated patients.
BACKGROUND: Assessment of left ventricular function by echocardiography is frequently challenging in mechanically ventilated patients. We evaluated the potential value of contrast-enhanced imaging and tissue harmonic imaging over standard fundamental imaging for endocardial border detection (EBD) in these patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: Fifty patients underwent standard transthoracic 2D echocardiography and were imaged in fundamental and tissue harmonic modes and subsequently with intravenous contrast (Optison). Two echocardiographers reviewed all studies for ease of visualization of endocardial border segments and scoring of wall motion. EBD for each wall segment was graded from 1 to 4 (1 = excellent EBD). Wall motion was scored by a standard 16-segment model and 1 to 5 scale. Studies were categorized as nondiagnostic if 4 of 6 segments in the apical 4-chamber view were either poorly seen or not seen (EBD score 3 or 4). Quantification of ejection fraction was independently performed offline. Visualization of 68% of all segments improved with contrast echocardiography versus 17% improvement with tissue harmonics compared with fundamental mode. Significant improvement (poor/not seen to good/excellent) occurred in 60% of segments with contrast echocardiography versus 18% with tissue harmonics. A total of 850 segments were deemed poor/not seen, 78% of which improved to good/excellent with contrast echocardiography versus 23% with tissue harmonics. Interobserver agreement on EBD was 64% to 70%. Conversion of nondiagnostic to diagnostic studies occurred in 85% of patients with contrast echocardiography versus 15% of patients with tissue harmonics. Scoring of wall motion with fundamental mode, tissue harmonics, and contrast echocardiography was possible in 61%, 74%, and 95% of individual segments, respectively (P <.001). Wall motion scoring was altered in 17% of segments with contrast echocardiography and in 8% with tissue harmonics. Interobserver agreement on wall motion scoring was 84% to 88%. Contrast echocardiography permitted measurement of ejection fraction 45% (P =.003) more often over fundamental mode versus a 27% (P =.09) increase with tissue harmonics. CONCLUSIONS: Contrast echocardiography is superior to tissue harmonic imaging for EBD, wall motion scoring, and quantification of ejection fraction in mechanically ventilated patients.
Authors: C J McMahon; N A Ayres; L I Bezold; M B Lewin; M Alonzo; C A Altman; J P Kovalchin; B W Eidem; R H Pignatelli Journal: Pediatr Cardiol Date: 2005 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 1.655
Authors: Markella I Printezi; Laura I E Yousif; Janine A M Kamphuis; Linda W van Laake; Maarten J Cramer; Monique G G Hobbelink; Folkert W Asselbergs; Arco J Teske Journal: Curr Heart Fail Rep Date: 2022-03-30
Authors: David G Platts; Charles McDonald; Kiran Shekar; Darryl J Burstow; Daniel Mullany; Marc Ziegenfuss; Sara Diab; John F Fraser Journal: Intensive Care Med Exp Date: 2016-03-11
Authors: Kelly Victor; Nicholas A Barrett; Stuart Gillon; Abigail Gowland; Christopher I S Meadows; Nicholas Ioannou Journal: Echo Res Pract Date: 2015-03-18