Johan Heiberg

Focused echocardiography: a systematic review of diagnostic and clinical decision-making in anaesthesia and critical care

Focused echocardiography is becoming a widely used tool to aid clinical assessment by anaesthetists and critical care physicians. At the present time, most physicians are not yet trained in focused echocardiography or believe that it may result in adverse outcomes by delaying, or otherwise interfering with, time‐critical patient management. We performed a systematic review of electronic databases on the topic of focused echocardiography in anaesthesia and critical care. We found 18 full text articles, which consistently reported that focused echocardiography may be used to identify or exclude previously unrecognised or suspected cardiac abnormalities, resulting in frequent important changes to patient management. However, most of the articles were observational studies with inherent design flaws. Thirteen prospective studies, including two that measured patient outcome, were supportive of focused echocardiography, whereas five retrospective cohort studies, including three outcome studies, did not support focused echocardiography. There is an urgent requirement for randomised controlled trials.

A pilot assessment of 3 point-of-care strategies for diagnosis of perioperative lung pathology.

BACKGROUND: Lung ultrasonography is superior to clinical examination and chest X-ray (CXR) in diagnosis of acute respiratory pathology in the emergency and critical care setting and after cardiothoracic surgery in intensive care. Lung ultrasound may be useful before cardiothoracic surgery and after discharge from intensive care, but the proportion of significant respiratory pathology in this setting is unknown and may be too low to justify its routine use. The aim of this study was to determine the proportion of clinically significant respiratory pathology detectable with CXR, clinical examination, and lung ultrasound in patients on the ward before and after cardiothoracic surgery. METHODS: In this prospective observational study, patients undergoing elective cardiothoracic surgery who received a CXR as part of standard care preoperatively or after discharge from the intensive care unit received a standardized clinical assessment and then a lung ultrasound examination within 24 hours of the CXR by 2 clinicians. The incidence of collapse/atelectasis, consolidation, alveolar-interstitial syndrome, pleural effusion, and pneumothorax were compared between clinical examination, CXR, and lung ultrasound (reference method) based on predefined diagnostic criteria in 3 zones of each lung. RESULTS: In 78 participants included, presence of any pathology was detected in 56% of the cohort by lung ultrasound; 24% preoperatively and 94% postoperatively. With lung ultrasound as a reference, the sensitivity of the 5 different pathologies ranged from 7% to 69% (CXR), 7% to 76% (clinical examination), and 14% to 94% (combined); the specificity of the 5 different pathologies ranged from 91% to 98% (CXR), from 90% to 99% (clinical examination), and from 82% to 97% (combined). For clinical examination and lung ultrasound, intraobserver agreements beyond chance ranged from 0.28 to 0.70 and from 0.84 to 0.97, respectively. The agreements beyond chance of pathologic diagnoses between modalities ranged from 0.11 to 0.64 (CXR and lung ultrasound), from 0.08 to 0.7 (CXR and lung ultrasound), and from 0 to 0.58 (clinical examination and CXR). CONCLUSIONS: Clinically important respiratory pathology is detectable by lung ultrasound in a substantial number of noncritically ill, pre or postoperative cardiothoracic surgery participants with high estimate of interobserver agreement beyond that expected by chance, and we showed clinically significant diagnoses may be missed by the contemporary practice of clinical examination and CXR.

Transthoracic and transoesophageal echocardiography: a systematic review of feasibility and impact on diagnosis, management and outcome after cardiac surgery

Transthoracic and transoesophageal echocardiography are increasingly used as tools to improve clinical assessment following cardiac surgery. However, most physicians are not trained in echocardiography, and there is no widespread agreement on the feasibility, indications or effect on outcome of transthoracic or transoesophageal echocardiography for patients after cardiac surgery. We performed a systematic review of electronic databases for focused transthoracic and transoesophageal echocardiography after cardiac surgery which revealed 15 full‐text articles. They consistently reported that echocardiography is feasible, whether performed by a novice or expert, and frequently resulted in important changes in diagnosis of cardiac abnormalities and their management. However, most were observational studies and there were no well‐designed trials investigating the impact of echocardiography on outcome. We conclude that both transthoracic and transoesophageal echocardiography are useful following cardiac surgery.

Assessment of Image Quality of Repeated Limited Transthoracic Echocardiography After Cardiac Surgery

OBJECTIVES The use of limited transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) has been restricted in patients after cardiac surgery due to reported poor image quality. The authors hypothesized that the hemodynamic state could be evaluated in a high proportion of patients at repeated intervals after cardiac surgery. DESIGN Prospective observational study. SETTING Tertiary university hospital. PARTICIPANTS The study comprised 51 patients aged 18 years or older presenting for cardiac surgery. INTERVENTIONS Patients underwent TTE before surgery and at 3 time points after cardiac surgery. Images were assessed offline using an image quality scoring system by 2 expert observers. Hemodynamic state was assessed using the iHeartScan protocol, and the primary endpoint was the proportion of limited TTE studies in which the hemodynamic state was interpretable at each of the 3 postoperative time points. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS Hemodynamic state interpretability varied over time and was highest before surgery (90%) and lowest on the first postoperative day (49%) (p<0.01). This variation in interpretability over time was reflected in all 3 transthoracic windows, ranging from 43% to 80% before surgery and from 2% to 35% on the first postoperative day (p<0.01). Image quality scores were highest with the apical window, ranging from 53% to 77% across time points, and lowest with the subcostal window, ranging from 4% to 70% across time points (p< 0.01). CONCLUSIONS Hemodynamic state can be determined with TTE in a high proportion of cardiac surgery patients after extubation and removal of surgical drains.

The influence of prolonged intensive care stay on quality of life, recovery, and clinical outcomes following cardiac surgery: A prospective cohort study

Objective To examine the influence of prolonged intensive care unit (ICU) stay on quality of life and recovery following cardiac surgery. Methods Quality of life was assessed using the Short Form 36 Health Survey (SF36). The Postoperative Quality of Recovery Scale was used to assess quality of recovery, disability, and cognition after ICU discharge over 12 months’ follow‐up. Prolonged ICU stay was defined as ≥3 postoperative days. Mortality and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events were recorded up to 12 months. Results For quality of life, the physical component improved over time in both groups (P < .01 for both groups), as did the mental component (P < .01 for both groups). The long ICU group had lower physical and mental components over time (both P values < .01), but by 12 months the values were similar. The overall quality of recovery was lower for the long ICU group (P < .01). Likewise, we found higher rates of recovery in the normal ICU group than in the long ICU group in terms of emotive recovery (P < .01), activities of daily living (P < .01), and cognitive recovery (P = .03) but no differences in terms of physiologic (P = .91), nociceptive (P = .89), and satisfaction with anesthetic care (P = .91). Major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (P < .01), 30‐day mortality (P < .01), and length of ward stay (P < .01) were all higher with prolonged ICU stay. Conclusions Patients with prolonged ICU stay have lower quality of life scores; however, they achieve similar midterm quality of recovery, but with reduced survival, increased major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events, and longer hospital length of stay.