4.6 Article

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

期刊

INTENSIVE CARE MEDICINE
卷 32, 期 10, 页码 1547-1552

出版社

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

关键词

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

向作者/读者索取更多资源

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.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据