Transesophageal Doppler Echocardiography
Mayo Clinic Proceedings (Impact Factor: 6.26). 08/1988; 63(7):726-8. DOI: 10.1016/S0025-6196(12)65535-9
Article: Transesophageal EchocardiographyJournal of the American Society of Echocardiography 09/1989; 2(5):354-7. DOI:10.1016/S0894-7317(89)80013-6 · 4.06 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The capability of transesophageal (TEE) versus transthoracic (TTE) echocardiography as a diagnostic tool in clinical practice was prospectively examined in 86 consecutive cases. A conclusive diagnosis was possible in 95% with TEE, whereas the same result was achieved in 48% by TTE. Specifically, TEE provided a conclusive diagnosis in 14 of 16 cases of infective endocarditis, while TTE gave this result in 4 of the 16 cases (p less than 0.001). Similarly, TEE allowed a conclusive diagnosis in 11 of 11 instances of aortic dissection, while TTE gave this indication in two cases (p less than 0.001). TEE was similarly effective in eight of eight cases of atrial thrombi, whereas TTE gave the diagnosis in three of eight cases (p less than 0.01). In five subjects with intracardiac masses, TEE gave a conclusive diagnosis in all five, whereas TTE was able to diagnose conclusively in one subject (p less than 0.02). In seven patients with mitral regurgitation, TEE gave the conclusive diagnosis in all seven and TTE was able to provide this information in four (p = NS). TEE was able to provide a conclusive diagnosis in four patients with aortic insufficiency, and TTE gave the same information in two of the four (p = NS). In 14 patients with prosthetic valve dysfunction, TEE gave the diagnosis in 12 and TTE gave it in eight patients (p = NS). Both methods gave a conclusive diagnosis in 13 out of 13 cases of mitral stenosis (p = NS). Also, TEE provided a conclusive diagnosis in eight of eight patients with adult congenital heart disease and TTE gave this information in four (p = NS).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)American Heart Journal 11/1990; 120(4):910-4. DOI:10.1016/0002-8703(90)90209-G · 4.46 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: No measurement of myocardial performance currently available in the ICU can be regarded is ideal. Table 2 summarises the main features of the major monitoring techniques. As many of the indices of myocardial performance are interdependent, quantifying the contribution of each component to overall cardiac function is not possible currently, and the clinical utility of monitoring each individually is not therefore established. Bedside measurements of LV dimensions, volumes and ejection fraction, and the other indices of systolic and diastolic function can now be made, but the case for their routine use in influencing clinical practice remains unproven. Transoesophageal echocardiography has an important and established diagnostic role and has been used successfully for continuous monitoring during surgery, but practical considerations seriously limit its potential for routine use. Radionuclide techniques allow the measurement of many of the same parameters and have the potential for continuous use, but practical problems and the additional risk of radiation exposure may limit this application in the critical care environment. Doppler techniques are non-invasive, provide continuous data and are simple to operate, but the data provided has important limitations. Although the pulmonary artery catheter has been in use for over twenty years, questions regarding the information is provides concerning myocardial function remain and the extent to which it should influence therapeutic decisions is still controversial. However with the development of additional facilities, particularly the continuous measurement of cardiac output the pulmonary artery catheter seems likely to remain the mainstay of bedside monitoring of myocardial performance in the critically ill in the immediate future.Intensive Care Medicine 09/1994; 20(7):513-21. DOI:10.1007/BF01711908 · 7.21 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.