JOURNAL ARTICLE

Assessment of left ventricular ejection fraction using an ultrasonic stethoscope in critically ill patients

Jean-Bernard Amiel, Ana Grümann, Gwenaëlle Lhéritier, Marc Clavel, Bruno François, Nicolas Pichon, Anthony Dugard, Benoît Marin, Philippe Vignon
Critical Care: the Official Journal of the Critical Care Forum 2012, 16 (1): R29
22335818

INTRODUCTION: Assessment of cardiac function is key in the management of intensive care unit (ICU) patients and frequently relies on the use of standard transthoracic echocardiography (TTE). A commercially available new generation ultrasound system with two-dimensional imaging capability, which has roughly the size of a mobile phone, is adequately suited to extend the physical examination. The primary endpoint of this study was to evaluate the additional value of this new miniaturized device used as an ultrasonic stethoscope (US) for the determination of left ventricular (LV) systolic function, when compared to conventional clinical assessment by experienced intensivists. The secondary endpoint was to validate the US against TTE for the semi-quantitative assessment of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) in ICU patients.

METHODS: In this single-center prospective descriptive study, LVEF was independently assessed clinically by the attending physician and echocardiographically by two experienced intensivists trained in critical care echocardiography who used the US (size: 135×73×28 mm; weight: 390 g) and TTE. LVEF was visually estimated semi-quantitatively and classified in one of the following categories: increased (LVEF>75%), normal (LVEF: 50 to 75%), moderately reduced (LVEF: 30 to 49%), or severely reduced (LVEF<30%). Biplane LVEF measured using the Simpson's rule on TTE loops by an independent investigator was used as reference.

RESULTS: A total of 94 consecutive patients were studied (age: 60±17 years; simplified acute physiologic score 2: 41±15), 63 being mechanically ventilated and 36 receiving vasopressors and/or inotropes. Diagnostic concordance between the clinically estimated LVEF and biplane LVEF was poor (Kappa: 0.33; 95% CI: 0.16 to 0.49) and only slightly improved by the knowledge of a previously determined LVEF value (Kappa: 0.44; 95% CI: 0.22 to 0.66). In contrast, the diagnostic agreement was good between visually assessed LVEF using the US and TTE (Kappa: 0.75; CI 95%: 0.63 to 0.87) and between LVEF assessed on-line and biplane LVEF, regardless of the system used (Kappa: 0.75; CI 95%: 0.64 to 0.87 and Kappa: 0.70; CI 95%: 0.59 to 0.82, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS: In ICU patients, the extension of physical examination using an US improves the ability of trained intensivists to determine LVEF at bedside. With trained operators, the semi-quantitative assessment of LVEF using the US is accurate when compared to standard TTE.

Full Text Links

Find Full Text Links for this Article

Discussion

You are not logged in. Sign Up or Log In to join the discussion.

Related Papers

Remove bar
Read by QxMD icon Read
22335818
×

Save your favorite articles in one place with a free QxMD account.

×

Search Tips

Use Boolean operators: AND/OR

diabetic AND foot
diabetes OR diabetic

Exclude a word using the 'minus' sign

Virchow -triad

Use Parentheses

water AND (cup OR glass)

Add an asterisk (*) at end of a word to include word stems

Neuro* will search for Neurology, Neuroscientist, Neurological, and so on

Use quotes to search for an exact phrase

"primary prevention of cancer"
(heart or cardiac or cardio*) AND arrest -"American Heart Association"