4.6 Article

Bedside echocardiographic evaluation of hemodynamics in sepsis: is a qualitative evaluation sufficient?

Journal

INTENSIVE CARE MEDICINE
Volume 32, Issue 10, Pages 1547-1552

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00134-006-0274-7

Keywords

echocardiography; septic shock; cardiac function; fluid responsiveness; evaluation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: Transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) has proven its efficiency in assessing hemodynamics in patients by its ability to evaluate cardiac function and fluid responsiveness. Classically, it requires quantitative measurements, whereas in routine practice TEE is used in our unit especially as a qualitative procedure. We assessed the accuracy of this qualitative central hemodynamic evaluation obtained by TEE at the bedside. Design and setting: Prospective study conducted in a medical ICU between September 2004 and April 2005. All TEE examinations performed in consecutive patients hospitalized for septic shock and mechanically ventilated for an associated acute lung injury were eligible for evaluation. Intensivists trained in echocardiography were asked to classify (a) respiratory changes in the superior vena cava (SVC), (b) left ventricular (LV) systolic function, (c) right ventricular (RV) end-diastolic size, and (d) shape and kinetics of the interventricular septum (IVS). A post-hoc quantitative evaluation was then performed by a trained investigator unaware of the patients' status. Results: We evaluated 83 examinations in 30 patients. Qualitative evaluation was easily able to distinguish patients with significant or nonsignificant SVC respiratory changes, normal, moderately or markedly depressed LV systolic function, and nondilated or dilated right ventricle. Acute cor pulmonale was also well recognized. Conclusion: By its ability accurately to evaluate hemodynamic status qualitative TEE could be useful for intensivists in managing circulatory failure in septic shock, rendering the more time-consuming quantitative evaluation useless.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available