Cargando…

Comparison of visual estimation and quantitative measurement of left ventricular ejection fraction in untrained perioperative echocardiographers

BACKGROUND: Perioperative evaluation of the left ventricular systolic function is essential information to help diagnose and manage life-threatening perioperative emergencies. Although quantifying the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is recommended to determine the left ventricular function...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Raksamani, Kasana, Noirit, Apinya, Chaikittisilpa, Nophanan
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10067170/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37005582
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12871-023-02067-3
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: Perioperative evaluation of the left ventricular systolic function is essential information to help diagnose and manage life-threatening perioperative emergencies. Although quantifying the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is recommended to determine the left ventricular function, it may not always be feasible in emergency perioperative settings. This study compared the visual estimation of LVEF (eyeballing) by noncardiac anesthesiologists with the quantitative LVEF measured using a modified Simpson’s biplane method. METHODS: Transesophageal echocardiographic (TEE) studies of 35 patients were selected and 3 different echocardiographic views (the mid-esophageal four chamber view, the mid-esophageal two chamber view, and the transgastric mid-papillary short axis view) were recovered from each study and displayed in random order. Two cardiac anesthesiologists certified in perioperative echocardiography independently measured LVEF using the modified Simpson method and categorized LVEF into five grades: hyperdynamic LVEF, normal, mildly reduced LVEF, moderately reduced LVEF and severely reduced LVEF. Seven noncardiac anesthesiologists with limited experience in echocardiography also reviewed the same TEE studies and estimated the LVEF and graded LV function. The precision of the LV function classification and the correlation between visual estimation of LVEF and quantitative LVEF were calculated. The agreement of measurements between the two methods was also assessed. RESULTS: Pearson’s correlation between the LVEF estimated by the participants and the quantitative LVEF using the modified Simpson method was 0.818 (p < 0.001). Of a total of 245 responses, 120 (49.0%) responses were correct grading of the LV function. Participants were able to classify the LV function more accurately in the LV function grades 1 and 5 (65.3%). The 95% level of agreement of the Bland-Altman method was − 11.3-24.5. -21.9-22.6, − 23.1-26.5, − 20.5-22.0 and − 26.6-11.1 for LV grade 1 to 5, respectively. CONCLUSION: Visual estimation of LVEF in perioperative TEE has acceptable accuracy in untrained echocardiographers and can be used for rescue TEE.