Cosyns B, El Haddad P, Lignian H, Daniels C, Weytjens C, Schoors D, Van Camp G
Academisch Ziekenhuis, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium.
Eur J Echocardiogr. 2004 Mar;5(2):118-22. doi: 10.1016/S1525-2167(03)00054-4.
The study examined the value of contrast echocardiography (CE) in the assessment of left ventricular (LV) wall motion in ventilated patients in comparison with transesophageal (TOE) and standard fundamental transthoracic imaging (SE).
Transthoracic echocardiograms were done in 40 ventilated patients. Wall motion was evaluated using the recommendations of the American Society of Echocardiography on SE, CE and TOE. A visualization score was assigned on a scale of 2-0 for each of 16 segments. The segment was assigned a value of 2 if the segment was seen in both systole and diastole, 1 if seen only in systole or diastole, and 0 if not seen at all. A confidence score was also given for each segment with each technique (unable to evaluate; not sure; sure). The ejection fraction (EF) was estimated visually for each technique, and a confidence score was also applied to the EF.
Visualization score 0 was present in 6.2 segments/patient on SE, 1.2 on CE (P<0.0001) and 1.1 on TOE (P<0.0001). An average of 6.5 segments were read with surety on SE, 11.5 on CE (P<0.0001) and 12.3 on TOE ( P<0.0001 ). There was no significant difference for CE vs TOE. EF was uninterpretable in 32% on SE, 0% on CE (P<0.001 and 0% on TOE (P<0.001). The EF was read with surety in 53% of patients on SE, 88% on CE (P < 0.0001) and 93% with TOE (P<0.0001) with no difference for CE vs TOE. Thus, wall motion was seen with more confidence on CE and TOE.
In the ventilated patients with suboptimal transthoracic echocardiograms for the evaluation of the LV function, CE provides image quality of regional and global LV function similar to that achieved with TOE echocardiography.
本研究比较了对比超声心动图(CE)与经食管超声心动图(TOE)及标准经胸基本成像(SE)在评估机械通气患者左心室(LV)壁运动方面的价值。
对40例机械通气患者进行经胸超声心动图检查。采用美国超声心动图学会关于SE、CE和TOE的建议评估壁运动。对16个节段中的每一个节段,根据可视化程度在2至0分的范围内打分。若节段在收缩期和舒张期均可见,则该节段评分为2分;若仅在收缩期或舒张期可见,则评分为1分;若完全不可见,则评分为0分。对每种技术下的每个节段,还给出了一个可信度评分(无法评估;不确定;确定)。通过目测估计每种技术下的射血分数(EF),并对EF给出可信度评分。
SE检查时,每个患者平均有6.2个节段可视化评分为0分,CE检查时为1.2个节段(P<0.0001),TOE检查时为1.1个节段(P<0.0001)。SE检查时平均有6.5个节段可明确判读,CE检查时为11.5个节段(P<0.0001),TOE检查时为12.3个节段(P<0.0001)。CE与TOE之间无显著差异。SE检查时32%的患者EF无法判读,CE检查时为0%(P<0.001),TOE检查时为0%(P<0.001)。SE检查时53%的患者EF可明确判读,CE检查时为88%(P<0.0001),TOE检查时为93%(P<0.0001),CE与TOE之间无差异。因此,CE和TOE对壁运动的观察更有把握。
在经胸超声心动图对左心室功能评估欠佳的机械通气患者中,CE提供的局部和整体左心室功能图像质量与TOE超声心动图相当。