Stephen J Huang1, Marek Nalos2, Louise Smith3, Arvind Rajamani2, Anthony S McLean2. 1. Department of Intensive Care Medicine, Nepean Hospital, Sydney Medical School, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia. Stephen.huang@sydney.edu.au. 2. Department of Intensive Care Medicine, Nepean Hospital, Sydney Medical School, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia. 3. Cardiovascular Ultrasound Laboratory, Intensive Care Unit, Nepean Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Many echocardiographic indices (or methods) for assessing right ventricular (RV) function are available, but each has its strengths and limitations. In some cases, there might be discordance between the indices. We conducted a systematic review to audit the echocardiographic RV assessments in critical care research to see if a consistent pattern existed. We specifically looked into the kind and number of RV indices used, and how RV dysfunction was defined in each study. METHODS: Studies conducted in critical care settings and reported echocardiographic RV function indices from 1997 to 2017 were searched systematically from three databases. Non-adult studies, case reports, reviews and secondary studies were excluded. These studies' characteristics and RV indices reported were summarized. RESULTS: Out of 495 non-duplicated publications found, 81 studies were included in our systematic review. There has been an increasing trend of studying RV function by echocardiography since 2001, and most were conducted in ICU. Thirty-one studies use a single index, mostly TAPSE, to define RV dysfunction; 33 used composite indices and the combinations varied between studies. Seventeen studies did not define RV dysfunction. For those using composite indices, many did not explain their choices. CONCLUSIONS: TAPSE seemed to be the most popular index in the last 2-3 years. Many studies used combinations of indices but, apart from cor pulmonale, we could not find a consistent pattern of RV assessment and definition of RV dysfunction amongst these studies.
PURPOSE: Many echocardiographic indices (or methods) for assessing right ventricular (RV) function are available, but each has its strengths and limitations. In some cases, there might be discordance between the indices. We conducted a systematic review to audit the echocardiographic RV assessments in critical care research to see if a consistent pattern existed. We specifically looked into the kind and number of RV indices used, and how RV dysfunction was defined in each study. METHODS: Studies conducted in critical care settings and reported echocardiographic RV function indices from 1997 to 2017 were searched systematically from three databases. Non-adult studies, case reports, reviews and secondary studies were excluded. These studies' characteristics and RV indices reported were summarized. RESULTS: Out of 495 non-duplicated publications found, 81 studies were included in our systematic review. There has been an increasing trend of studying RV function by echocardiography since 2001, and most were conducted in ICU. Thirty-one studies use a single index, mostly TAPSE, to define RV dysfunction; 33 used composite indices and the combinations varied between studies. Seventeen studies did not define RV dysfunction. For those using composite indices, many did not explain their choices. CONCLUSIONS: TAPSE seemed to be the most popular index in the last 2-3 years. Many studies used combinations of indices but, apart from cor pulmonale, we could not find a consistent pattern of RV assessment and definition of RV dysfunction amongst these studies.
Entities:
Keywords:
Anaesthetics; Critical care; Echocardiography; Emergency; Intensive care; Right ventricular function
Authors: Domenico Rendina; Silvana De Bonis; Giovanni Gallotta; Vincenzo Piedimonte; Giuseppe Mossetti; Gianpaolo De Filippo; Francesca Farina; Giuseppe Vargas; Maria Rosaria Barbella; Alfredo Postiglione; Pasquale Strazzullo Journal: Intern Emerg Med Date: 2009-11-25 Impact factor: 3.397
Authors: Anthony J Weekes; Denise N Fraga; Vitaliy Belyshev; William Bost; Christopher A Gardner; Nathaniel S O'Connell Journal: Crit Care Date: 2022-06-04 Impact factor: 19.334
Authors: Rebecca R Vanderpool; Reena Puri; Alexandra Osorio; Kelly Wickstrom; Ankit Desai; Stephen Black; Joe G N Garcia; Jason Yuan; Franz Rischard Journal: Pulm Circ Date: 2019-04-29 Impact factor: 3.017
Authors: Jennifer Mary Willder; Philip McCall; Claudia-Martina Messow; Mike Gillies; Colin Berry; Benjamin Shelley Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2021-01-13 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Dominik J Vogel; Ambra Fabbri; Andrea Falvo; Jonah Powell-Tuck; Nishita Desai; Francesco Vasques; Chris Meadows; Nicholas Ioannou; Guy Glover; Aimée Brame; Peter Sherren; Andrew Retter; Ronak Rajani; Luigi Camporota Journal: Crit Care Explor Date: 2021-02-22
Authors: Anthony J Weekes; Jaron D Raper; Kathryn Lupez; Alyssa M Thomas; Carly A Cox; Dasia Esener; Jeremy S Boyd; Jason T Nomura; Jillian Davison; Patrick M Ockerse; Stephen Leech; Jakea Johnson; Eric Abrams; Kathleen Murphy; Christopher Kelly; H James Norton Journal: PLoS One Date: 2021-11-18 Impact factor: 3.240