This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Reilly, J. P. Articles by Kronzon, I. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Reilly, J. P. Articles by Kronzon, I.

CLINICAL STUDIES

Contrast echocardiography clarifies uninterpretable wall motion in intensive care unit patients

^a Department of Medicine, Noninvasive Cardiology Laboratory, New York University School of Medicine, New York, New York., USA

Manuscript received December 7, 1998; revised manuscript received July 22, 1999, accepted October 18, 1999.

Reprint requests and correspondence: Dr. Paul A. Tunick, New York University School of Medicine, 560 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016
Paul.Tunick{at}med.nyu.edu

OBJECTIVES

The study examined the value of contrast echocardiography in the assessment of left ventricular (LV) wall motion in intensive care unit (ICU) patients.

BACKGROUND

Echocardiograms done in the ICU are often suboptimal. The most common indication is the evaluation of LV wall motion and ejection fraction (EF).

METHODS

Transthoracic echocardiograms were done in 70 unselected ICU patients. Wall motion was evaluated on standard echocardiography (SE), harmonic echocardiography (HE), and after intravenous (IV) contrast echocardiography (CE) using a score for each of 16 segments. A confidence score was also given for each segment with each technique (unable to judge; not sure; sure). The EF was estimated visually for each technique, and a confidence score was applied to the EF.

RESULTS

Uninterpretable wall motion was present in 5.4 segments/patient on SE, 4.4 on HE (p = 0.2), and 1.1 on CE (p < 0.0001). An average of 7.8 segments were read with surety on SE, 9.2 on HE (p = 0.1), and 13.7 on CE (p < 0.0001). Ejection fraction was uninterpretable in 23% on SE, 13% on HE (p = 0.14), and 0% on CE (p = 0.002 vs. HE; p < 0.0001 vs. SE). The EF was read with surety in 56% of patients on SE, 62% on HE (p = 0.47), and 91% on CE (p < 0.0001). Thus, wall motion was seen with more confidence on CE. More importantly, the actual readings of segmental wall motion and EF significantly differed using CE.

CONCLUSIONS

CE should be used in all ICU patients with suboptimal transthoracic echocardiograms.

Abbreviations and Acronyms   ICU = intensive care unit

This article has been cited by other articles:

				C. A. Herzog Incidence of Adverse Events Associated With Use of Perflutren Contrast Agents for Echocardiography JAMA, May 7, 2008; 299(17): 2023 - 2025. [Full Text] [PDF]

				L. L. Kusnetzky, A. Khalid, T. M. Khumri, T. G. Moe, P. G. Jones, and M. L. Main Acute Mortality in Hospitalized Patients Undergoing Echocardiography With and Without an Ultrasound Contrast Agent: Results in 18,671 Consecutive Studies J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., April 29, 2008; 51(17): 1704 - 1706. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. Hoffmann, A. C. Borges, J. D. Kasprzak, S. von Bardeleben, C. Firschke, C. Greis, M. Engelhardt, H. Becher, and J. L. Vanoverschelde Analysis of myocardial perfusion or myocardial function for detection of regional myocardial abnormalities. An echocardiographic multicenter comparison study using myocardial contrast echocardiography and 2D echocardiography Eur J Echocardiogr, December 1, 2007; 8(6): 438 - 448. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. Olszewski, J. Timperley, S. Cezary, M. Monaghan, P. Nihoyannopoulis, R. Senior, and H. Becher The clinical applications of contrast echocardiography Eur J Echocardiogr, June 1, 2007; 8(3): s13 - s23. [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. Hoffmann, S. von Bardeleben, J. D. Kasprzak, A. C. Borges, F. ten Cate, C. Firschke, S. Lafitte, N. Al-Saadi, S. Kuntz-Hehner, G. Horstick, et al. Analysis of Regional Left Ventricular Function by Cineventriculography, Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging, and Unenhanced and Contrast-Enhanced Echocardiography: A Multicenter Comparison of Methods J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., January 3, 2006; 47(1): 121 - 128. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. F. Bolger Do You See What I See?: Agreeing to Disagree J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., January 3, 2006; 47(1): 129 - 130. [Full Text] [PDF]

				Y. Beaulieu and P. E. Marik Bedside Ultrasonography in the ICU: Part 2 Chest, September 1, 2005; 128(3): 1766 - 1781. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				B Cosyns, P El Haddad, H Lignian, C Daniels, C Weytjens, D Schoors, and G Van Camp Contrast harmonic imaging improves the evaluation of left ventricular function in ventilated patients: comparison with transesophageal echocardiography Eur J Echocardiogr, March 1, 2004; 5(2): 118 - 122. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. D. Cheitlin, W. F. Armstrong, G. P. Aurigemma, G. A. Beller, F. Z. Bierman, J. L. Davis, P. S. Douglas, D. P. Faxon, L. D. Gillam, T. R. Kimball, et al. ACC/AHA/ASE 2003 guideline update for the clinical application of echocardiography: summary article: a report of the American college of cardiology/American heart association task force on practice guidelines (ACC/AHA/ASE committee to update the 1997 guidelines for the clinical application of echocardiography) J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., September 3, 2003; 42(5): 954 - 970. [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. D. Cheitlin, W. F. Armstrong, G. P. Aurigemma, G. A. Beller, F. Z. Bierman, J. L. Davis, P. S. Douglas, D. P. Faxon, L. D. Gillam, T. R. Kimball, et al. ACC/AHA/ASE 2003 Guideline Update for the Clinical Application of Echocardiography: Summary Article: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (ACC/AHA/ASE Committee to Update the 1997 Guidelines for the Clinical Application of Echocardiography) Circulation, September 2, 2003; 108(9): 1146 - 1162. [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. J Stewart CONTRAST ECHOCARDIOGRAPHY Heart, March 1, 2003; 89(3): 342 - 348. [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. Spinazzi Emerging clinical applications for contrast echocardiography Eur. Heart J. Suppl., March 1, 2002; 4(suppl_C): C8 - C11. [Abstract] [PDF]

				A. Distante, R. Dankowski, P. Mincarone, C.G. Leo, E. Gianicolo, P. Voci, M.A. Morales, and D. Rovai Contrast echocardiography and medical economics: looking into the crystal ball Eur. Heart J. Suppl., March 1, 2002; 4(suppl_C): C39 - C47. [Abstract] [PDF]

				A. POPPAS and S. ROUNDS Congestive Heart Failure Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med., January 1, 2002; 165(1): 4 - 8. [Full Text] [PDF]

				T. R. Porter Improving the evaluation of left ventricular systolic function with intravenous perfluorocarbon ultrasound contrast: will suboptimal echocardiograms become an endangered species? J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., February 1, 2000; 35(2): 491 - 492. [Full Text] [PDF]