Suppr超能文献

围手术期主动脉峰值射流速度的测量——仪器变异性:对主动脉瓣狭窄严重程度评估的影响

Measurement of peak aortic jet velocity in the perioperative period-machine variability: implications for assessment of aortic stenosis severity.

作者信息

Cowie B S, Kluger R

机构信息

Staff Anaesthetist, Department of Anaesthesia, St Vincent's Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria.

Staff Specialist Anaesthetist, Department of Anaesthesia, St Vincent's Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria.

出版信息

Anaesth Intensive Care. 2015 Sep;43(5):641-5. doi: 10.1177/0310057X1504300514.

Abstract

Variation in echocardiography machines and probes are not well described in the perioperative period. We aimed to compare the estimation of severity of aortic stenosis with transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) using two semi-portable ultrasound machines. Experienced cardiac anaesthetists performed a limited transthoracic echocardiogram with two different semi-portable ultrasound machines in patients with known aortic stenosis. The peak aortic jet velocity with continuous-wave Doppler and the time taken to obtain an acceptable envelope were recorded. The Sonosite M Turbo often underestimated the peak jet velocities (median jet velocity [IQR] 2.25 m/s [1.95 to 3.4] versus 3.85 m/s (3 to 4.2); P <0.001) and required more time to get a satisfactory envelope than the GE Vivid I. There was no statistically or clinically significant difference between the velocities obtained from the Vivid I and those measured on the patient's formal cardiology preoperative transthoracic echocardiogram (median [IQR]: 3.95 m/s [3.0 to 4.7]; P=0.3). However, the velocities obtained by the M Turbo were significantly lower than those obtained by the formal preoperative transthoracic echocardiogram (P <0.001). With the expansion of transthoracic echocardiography amongst anaesthetists, underestimation of the peak aortic jet velocity can significantly underestimate the severity of aortic stenosis with potentially lethal clinical consequences. Semi-portable ultrasound machines with echocardiographic capability are not necessarily equivalent and can result in underestimation of severity of aortic stenosis.

摘要

围手术期超声心动图机器和探头的差异尚未得到充分描述。我们旨在比较使用两台半便携式超声机器通过经胸超声心动图(TTE)评估主动脉狭窄的严重程度。经验丰富的心脏麻醉医生对已知主动脉狭窄的患者使用两台不同的半便携式超声机器进行了有限的经胸超声心动图检查。记录了连续波多普勒测得的主动脉峰值射流速度以及获得可接受包络所需的时间。与GE Vivid I相比,Sonosite M Turbo常常低估峰值射流速度(中位数射流速度[四分位间距]为2.25米/秒[1.95至3.4],而Vivid I为3.85米/秒[3至4.2];P<0.001),并且获得满意包络所需的时间更长。从Vivid I获得的速度与患者术前正式心脏科经胸超声心动图测得的速度之间在统计学或临床上均无显著差异(中位数[四分位间距]:3.95米/秒[3.0至4.7];P=0.3)。然而,M Turbo获得的速度显著低于术前正式经胸超声心动图获得的速度(P<0.001)。随着麻醉医生中经胸超声心动图应用的增加,主动脉峰值射流速度的低估可能会显著低估主动脉狭窄的严重程度,从而带来潜在的致命临床后果。具有超声心动图功能的半便携式超声机器不一定等效,可能会导致对主动脉狭窄严重程度的低估。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验