Susanna Price
Imperial College London
Network
Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.
Publication
Featured researches published by Susanna Price.
European Heart Journal | 2011
Vera Regitz-Zagrosek; Carina Blomström Lundqvist; Claudio Borghi; Renata Cifkova; Rafael Ferreira; Jean-Michel Foidart; J. Simon R. Gibbs; Christa Gohlke-Baerwolf; Bulent Gorenek; Bernard Iung; Mike Kirby; Angela H. E. M. Maas; Joao Morais; Petros Nihoyannopoulos; Petronella G. Pieper; Patrizia Presbitero; Jolien W. Roos-Hesselink; Maria Schaufelberger; Ute Seeland; Lucia Torracca; Jeroen Bax; Angelo Auricchio; Helmut Baumgartner; Claudio Ceconi; Veronica Dean; Christi Deaton; Robert Fagard; Christian Funck-Brentano; David Hasdai; Arno W. Hoes
Table 1. Classes of recommendation Table 2. Levels of evidence Table 3. Estimated fetal and maternal effective doses for various diagnostic and interventional radiology procedures Table 4. Predictors of maternal cardiovascular events and risk score from the CARPREG study Table 5. Predictors of maternal cardiovascular events identified in congential heart diseases in the ZAHARA and Khairy study Table 6. Modified WHO classification of maternal cardiovascular risk: principles Table 7. Modified WHO classification of maternal cardiovascular risk: application Table 8. Maternal predictors of neonatal events in women with heart disease Table 9. General recommendations Table 10. Recommendations for the management of congenital heart disease Table 11. Recommendations for the management of aortic disease Table 12. Recommendations for the management of valvular heart disease Table 13. Recommendations for the management of coronary artery disease Table 14. Recommendations for the management of cardiomyopathies and heart failure Table 15. Recommendations for the management of arrhythmias Table 16. Recommendations for the management of hypertension Table 17. Check list for risk factors for venous thrombo-embolism Table 18. Prevalence of congenital thrombophilia and the associated risk of venous thrombo-embolism during pregnancy Table 19. Risk groups according to risk factors: definition and preventive measures Table 20. Recommendations for the prevention and management of venous thrombo-embolism in pregnancy and puerperium Table 21. Recommendations for drug use ABPM : ambulatory blood pressure monitoring ACC : American College of Cardiology ACE : angiotensin-converting enzyme ACS : acute coronary syndrome AF : atrial fibrillation AHA : American Heart Association aPTT : activated partial thromboplastin time ARB : angiotensin receptor blocker AS : aortic stenosis ASD : atrial septal defect AV : atrioventricular AVSD : atrioventricular septal defect BMI : body mass index BNP : B-type natriuretic peptide BP : blood pressure CDC : Centers for Disease Control CHADS : congestive heart failure, hypertension, age (>75 years), diabetes, stroke CI : confidence interval CO : cardiac output CoA : coarction of the aorta CT : computed tomography CVD : cardiovascular disease DBP : diastolic blood pressure DCM : dilated cardiomyopathy DVT : deep venous thrombosis ECG : electrocardiogram EF : ejection fraction ESC : European Society of Cardiology ESH : European Society of Hypertension ESICM : European Society of Intensive Care Medicine FDA : Food and Drug Administration HCM : hypertrophic cardiomyopathy ICD : implantable cardioverter-defibrillator INR : international normalized ratio i.v. : intravenous LMWH : low molecular weight heparin LV : left ventricular LVEF : left ventricular ejection fraction LVOTO : left ventricular outflow tract obstruction MRI : magnetic resonance imaging MS : mitral stenosis NT-proBNP : N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide NYHA : New York Heart Association OAC : oral anticoagulant PAH : pulmonary arterial hypertension PAP : pulmonary artery pressure PCI : percutaneous coronary intervention PPCM : peripartum cardiomyopathy PS : pulmonary valve stenosis RV : right ventricular SBP : systolic blood pressure SVT : supraventricular tachycardia TGA : complete transposition of the great arteries TR : tricuspid regurgitation UFH : unfractionated heparin VSD : ventricular septal defect VT : ventricular tachycardia VTE : venous thrombo-embolism WHO : World Health Organization Guidelines summarize and evaluate all available evidence, at the time of the writing process, on a particular issue with the aim of assisting physicians in selecting the best management strategies for an individual patient, with a given condition, taking into account the impact on outcome, as well as the risk–benefit ratio of particular diagnostic or therapeutic means. Guidelines are no substitutes but are complements for textbooks and cover the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Core Curriculum topics. Guidelines and recommendations should help the …
JAMA | 2011
Moronke A. Noah; Giles J. Peek; Simon J. Finney; Mark Griffiths; David A Harrison; Richard Grieve; M Zia Sadique; Jasjeet S. Sekhon; Daniel F. McAuley; Richard K. Firmin; Christopher Harvey; Jeremy J. Cordingley; Susanna Price; Alain Vuylsteke; David P. Jenkins; David W. Noble; Roxanna Bloomfield; Timothy S. Walsh; Gavin D. Perkins; David K. Menon; Bruce L. Taylor; Kathryn M Rowan
CONTEXT Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) can support gas exchange in patients with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), but its role has remained controversial. ECMO was used to treat patients with ARDS during the 2009 influenza A(H1N1) pandemic. OBJECTIVE To compare the hospital mortality of patients with H1N1-related ARDS referred, accepted, and transferred for ECMO with matched patients who were not referred for ECMO. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS A cohort study in which ECMO-referred patients were defined as all patients with H1N1-related ARDS who were referred, accepted, and transferred to 1 of the 4 adult ECMO centers in the United Kingdom during the H1N1 pandemic in winter 2009-2010. The ECMO-referred patients and the non-ECMO-referred patients were matched using data from a concurrent, longitudinal cohort study (Swine Flu Triage study) of critically ill patients with suspected or confirmed H1N1. Detailed demographic, physiological, and comorbidity data were used in 3 different matching techniques (individual matching, propensity score matching, and GenMatch matching). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE Survival to hospital discharge analyzed according to the intention-to-treat principle. RESULTS Of 80 ECMO-referred patients, 69 received ECMO (86.3%) and 22 died (27.5%) prior to discharge from the hospital. From a pool of 1756 patients, there were 59 matched pairs of ECMO-referred patients and non-ECMO-referred patients identified using individual matching, 75 matched pairs identified using propensity score matching, and 75 matched pairs identified using GenMatch matching. The hospital mortality rate was 23.7% for ECMO-referred patients vs 52.5% for non-ECMO-referred patients (relative risk [RR], 0.45 [95% CI, 0.26-0.79]; P = .006) when individual matching was used; 24.0% vs 46.7%, respectively (RR, 0.51 [95% CI, 0.31-0.81]; P = .008) when propensity score matching was used; and 24.0% vs 50.7%, respectively (RR, 0.47 [95% CI, 0.31-0.72]; P = .001) when GenMatch matching was used. The results were robust to sensitivity analyses, including amending the inclusion criteria and restricting the location where the non-ECMO-referred patients were treated. CONCLUSION For patients with H1N1-related ARDS, referral and transfer to an ECMO center was associated with lower hospital mortality compared with matched non-ECMO-referred patients.
European Journal of Anaesthesiology | 2014
Steen Dalby Kristensen; Juhani Knuuti; Antti Saraste; Stefan Anker; Hans Erik Bøtker; Stefan De Hert; Ian Ford; Jose Ramon Gonzalez Juanatey; Bulent Gorenek; Guy R. Heyndrickx; Andreas Hoeft; Kurt Huber; Bernard Iung; Keld Kjeldsen; Dan Longrois; T.F. Luescher; Luc Pierard; Stuart J. Pocock; Susanna Price; Marco Roffi; Per Anton Sirnes; Miguel Sousa Uva; Vasilis Voudris; Christian Funck-Brentano
Authors/Task Force Members: Steen Dalby Kristensen* (Chairperson) (Denmark), Juhani Knuuti* (Chairperson) (Finland), Antti Saraste (Finland), Stefan Anker (Germany), Hans Erik Bøtker (Denmark), Stefan De Hert (Belgium), Ian Ford (UK), Jose Ramón Gonzalez-Juanatey (Spain), Bulent Gorenek (Turkey), Guy Robert Heyndrickx (Belgium), Andreas Hoeft (Germany), Kurt Huber (Austria), Bernard Iung (France), Keld Per Kjeldsen (Denmark), Dan Longrois (France), Thomas F. Lüscher (Switzerland), Luc Pierard (Belgium), Stuart Pocock (UK), Susanna Price (UK), Marco Roffi (Switzerland), Per Anton Sirnes (Norway), Miguel Sousa-Uva (Portugal), Vasilis Voudris (Greece), Christian Funck-Brentano (France).
European Heart Journal | 2014
Steen Dalby Kristensen; Juhani Knuuti; Antti Saraste; Stefan Anker; Hans Erik Bøtker; Stefan De Hert; Ian Ford; José Ramón González-Juanatey; Bulent Gorenek; Guy R. Heyndrickx; Andreas Hoeft; Kurt Huber; Bernard Iung; Keld Kjeldsen; Dan Longrois; Thomas F. Lüscher; Luc Pierard; Stuart J. Pocock; Susanna Price; Marco Roffi; Per Anton Sirnes; Miguel Sousa-Uva; Vasilis Voudris; Christian Funck-Brentano
The American College of Cardiology (ACC), the American Heart Association (AHA), and the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) are pleased to announce the publication of two new versions of Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) on Perioperative Cardiovascular Evaluation from our respective organizations.1–3 These revisions were begun independently, dictated both by emerging, new information regarding the topic and the controversy regarding the legitimacy of data from previously published pivotal trials. Accordingly, the leadership of these international organizations recognized the importance of scientific collaboration and writing committee coordination for the benefit of the worldwide cardiology community. A joint statement was therefore posted in August 20134–6 to indicate that the respective CPGs were under revision and to provide some guidance regarding perioperative beta-blockade therapy in the interim. Since then, the members of both ESC and ACC/AHA guideline writing committees have reviewed the evidence thoroughly and systematically. The writing committees and the two supervisory task force groups decided to analyse separately the evidence about beta-blocker therapy used in the perioperative period and to develop specific treatment recommendations as a first step in the process of revision. After this independent work, the revised recommendations were shared between the two writing committees so that the rationales for any differences in recommendations could be articulated clearly. As a result of this process, we are confident that the evidence base has been objectively reviewed by two independent expert writing committees. The development of the two revised CPGs on perioperative cardiovascular care underscores the benefits of collaboration. Although the writing committees compiled and reviewed the evidence separately, they subsequently came together to validate their analyses, finding that they had both drawn on the same data and reached similar conclusions. Additionally, discussions are ongoing among the ACC, AHA, and ESC about sharing resources related to the systematic review of evidence. The potential advantages of more highly structured joint CPG initiatives are under active consideration. The CPGs on cardiovascular care in the perioperative period represent a fresh and objective review of old and new evidence in this important clinical arena. Features of the CPGs include the latest synthesis of the data on the use of beta-blockers in patients who have taken them chronically, considerations regarding selection of patients who are potential candidates to receive beta-blockers pre-operatively, and guidance regarding how to use this important and powerful class of drugs in the perioperative period. Clinicians will find the recommendations in these revised CPGs useful in their daily work and can be reassured that the recommendations have been vetted thoroughly by the most rigorous scientific process. Furthermore, the recommendations in both documents are fundamentally aligned, so that cardiovascular clinicians worldwide may deliver optimal, standardized care.
Resuscitation | 2010
Raoul Breitkreutz; Susanna Price; Holger Steiger; Florian Seeger; H. Ilper; Hanns Ackermann; Marcus Rudolph; Shahana Uddin; Markus Weigand; Edgar Müller; F. Walcher
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY Focused ultrasound is increasingly used in the emergency setting, with an ALS-compliant focused echocardiography algorithm proposed as an adjunct in peri-resuscitation care (FEEL). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of FEEL in pre-hospital resuscitation, the incidence of potentially treatable conditions detected, and the influence on patient management. PATIENTS, MATERIALS AND METHODS A prospective observational study in a pre-hospital emergency setting in patients actively undergoing cardio-pulmonary resuscitation or in a shock state. The FEEL protocol was applied by trained emergency doctors, following which a standardised report sheet was completed, including echo findings and any echo-directed change in management. These reports were then analysed independently. RESULTS A total of 230 patients were included, with 204 undergoing a FEEL examination during ongoing cardiac arrest (100) and in a shock state (104). Images of diagnostic quality were obtained in 96%. In 35% of those with an ECG diagnosis of asystole, and 58% of those with PEA, coordinated cardiac motion was detected, and associated with increased survival. Echocardiographic findings altered management in 78% of cases. CONCLUSIONS Application of ALS-compliant echocardiography in pre-hospital care is feasible, and alters diagnosis and management in a significant number of patients. Further research into its effect on patient outcomes is warranted.
Journal of The American Society of Echocardiography | 2014
Gabriele Via; Arif Hussain; Mike Wells; Robert F. Reardon; Mahmoud Elbarbary; Vicki E. Noble; James W. Tsung; Aleksandar Neskovic; Susanna Price; Achikam Oren-Grinberg; Andrew S. Liteplo; Ricardo Cordioli; Nitha Naqvi; Philippe Rola; Jan Poelaert; Tatjana Golob Guliĉ; Erik Sloth; Arthur J. Labovitz; Bruce J. Kimura; Raoul Breitkreutz; Navroz D. Masani; Justin Bowra; Daniel Talmor; Fabio Guarracino; Adrian Goudie; Wang Xiaoting; Rajesh Chawla; Maurizio Galderisi; Micheal Blaivas; Tomislav Petrovic
BACKGROUND Focused cardiac ultrasound (FoCUS) is a simplified, clinician-performed application of echocardiography that is rapidly expanding in use, especially in emergency and critical care medicine. Performed by appropriately trained clinicians, typically not cardiologists, FoCUS ascertains the essential information needed in critical scenarios for time-sensitive clinical decision making. A need exists for quality evidence-based review and clinical recommendations on its use. METHODS The World Interactive Network Focused on Critical UltraSound conducted an international, multispecialty, evidence-based, methodologically rigorous consensus process on FoCUS. Thirty-three experts from 16 countries were involved. A systematic multiple-database, double-track literature search (January 1980 to September 2013) was performed. The Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation method was used to determine the quality of available evidence and subsequent development of the recommendations. Evidence-based panel judgment and consensus was collected and analyzed by means of the RAND appropriateness method. RESULTS During four conferences (in New Delhi, Milan, Boston, and Barcelona), 108 statements were elaborated and discussed. Face-to-face debates were held in two rounds using the modified Delphi technique. Disagreement occurred for 10 statements. Weak or conditional recommendations were made for two statements and strong or very strong recommendations for 96. These recommendations delineate the nature, applications, technique, potential benefits, clinical integration, education, and certification principles for FoCUS, both for adults and pediatric patients. CONCLUSIONS This document presents the results of the first International Conference on FoCUS. For the first time, evidence-based clinical recommendations comprehensively address this branch of point-of-care ultrasound, providing a framework for FoCUS to standardize its application in different clinical settings around the world.
Cardiovascular Ultrasound | 2008
Susanna Price; Gabriele Via; Erik Sloth; Fabio Guarracino; Raoul Breitkreutz; Emanuele Catena; Daniel Talmor
Echocardiography is increasingly used in the management of the critically ill patient as a non-invasive diagnostic and monitoring tool. Whilst in few countries specialized national training schemes for intensive care unit (ICU) echocardiography have been developed, specific guidelines for ICU physicians wishing to incorporate echocardiography into their clinical practice are lacking. Further, existing echocardiography accreditation does not reflect the requirements of the ICU practitioner. The WINFOCUS (World Interactive Network Focused On Critical UltraSound) ECHO-ICU Group drew up a document aimed at providing guidance to individual physicians, trainers and the relevant societies of the requirements for the development of skills in echocardiography in the ICU setting. The document is based on recommendations published by the Royal College of Radiologists, British Society of Echocardiography, European Association of Echocardiography and American Society of Echocardiography, together with international input from established practitioners of ICU echocardiography. The recommendations contained in this document are concerned with theoretical basis of ultrasonography, the practical aspects of building an ICU-based echocardiography service as well as the key components of standard adult TTE and TEE studies to be performed on the ICU. Specific issues regarding echocardiography in different ICU clinical scenarios are then described.Obtaining competence in ICU echocardiography may be achieved in different ways – either through completion of an appropriate fellowship/training scheme, or, where not available, via a staged approach designed to train the practitioner to a level at which they can achieve accreditation. Here, peri-resuscitation focused echocardiography represents the entry level – obtainable through established courses followed by mentored practice. Next, a competence-based modular training programme is proposed: theoretical elements delivered through blended-learning and practical elements acquired in parallel through proctored practice. These all linked with existing national/international echocardiography courses. When completed, it is anticipated that the practitioner will have performed the prerequisite number of studies, and achieved the competency to undertake accreditation (leading to Level 2 competence) via a recognized National or European examination and provide the appropriate required evidence of competency (logbook). Thus, even where appropriate fellowships are not available, with support from the relevant echocardiography bodies, training and subsequently accreditation in ICU echocardiography becomes achievable within the existing framework of current critical care and cardiological practice, and is adaptable to each countries needs.
Intensive Care Medicine | 2006
Susanna Price; E. Nicol; D. G. Gibson; T. W. Evans
BackgroundThe use of echocardiography in the critically ill presents specific challenges. However, information of direct relevance to clinical management can be obtained relating to abnormalities of structure and function and can be used to estimate pulmonary arterial and venous pressures.DiscussionInvestigation of the consequences of myocardial ischaemia, valvular dysfunction and pericardial disease can be facilitated, and changes characteristic of specific conditions (e.g. sepsis, pulmonary thromboembolism) detected. Echocardiography can also be used to monitor the effects of therapeutic interventions.ConclusionsThe applications of echocardiography in the critical care setting (excluding standard peri-operative echocardiography for cardiac surgery) are reviewed, with particular emphasis on the assessment of cardiac physiology.
Critical Care Medicine | 2015
Heidi L. Frankel; Andrew W. Kirkpatrick; Mahmoud Elbarbary; Michael Blaivas; Himanshu Desai; David Evans; Douglas T. Summerfield; Anthony D. Slonim; Raoul Breitkreutz; Susanna Price; Paul E. Marik; Daniel Talmor; Alexander Levitov
Objective: To establish evidence-based guidelines for the use of bedside ultrasound by intensivists and specialists in the ICU and equivalent care sites for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes for organs of the chest, abdomen, pelvis, neck, and extremities. Methods: The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system was used to determine the strength of recommendations as either strong or conditional/weak and to rank the “levels” of quality of evidence into high (A), moderate (B), or low (C) and thus generating six “grades” of recommendation (1A-1B-1C-2A-2B-2C). Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) was used for all questions with clinically relevant outcomes. RAND appropriateness method, incorporating modified Delphi technique, was used in steps of GRADE that required panel judgment and for those based purely on expert consensus. The process was conducted by teleconference and electronic-based discussion, following clear rules for establishing consensus and agreement/disagreement. Individual panel members provided full disclosure and were judged to be free of any commercial bias. The process was conducted independent of industry funding. Results: Twenty-four statements regarding the use of ultrasound were considered—three did not achieve agreement and nine were approved as conditional recommendations (strength class 2). The remaining 12 statements were approved as strong recommendations (strength class 1). Each recommendation was also linked to its level of quality of evidence. Key strong recommendations included the use of ultrasonography for ruling-in pleural effusion and assisting its drainage, ascites drainage, ruling-in pneumothorax, central venous cannulation, particularly for internal jugular and femoral sites, and for diagnosis of deep venous thrombosis. Conditional recommendations were given to the use of ultrasound by the intensivist for diagnosis of acalculous cholecystitis, renal failure, and interstitial and parenchymal lung diseases. No recommendations were made regarding static (vs dynamic) ultrasound guidance of vascular access or the use of needle guide devices. Conclusions: There was strong agreement among a large cohort of international experts regarding several recommendations for the use of ultrasound in the ICU. Evidence-based recommendations regarding the appropriate use of this technology are a step toward improving patient outcomes in relevant patients.
Current Opinion in Critical Care | 2010
Susanna Price; Shahana Uddin; Tom Quinn
Purpose of reviewSuccessful resuscitation requires potentially reversible causes to be diagnosed and reversed, and many of these can readily be diagnosed using echocardiography. Although members of the resuscitation team routinely use adjuncts to their clinical examination in order to differentiate these causes, the use of echocardiography is not yet considered standard. The purpose of this review is to discuss the potential for echocardiography to aid diagnosis and treatment during resuscitation, together with some of the perceived challenges that currently limit its widespread use. Recent findingsMany studies have demonstrated the value of echocardiography in the assessment of critically ill patients in the intensive care unit and emergency room settings, including more recently the use of focused echocardiography. This can be performed within the time frame allowed during the pulse check of the advanced life support (ALS) algorithm. ALS-compliant focused echocardiography can be taught to nonexpert practitioners such that high-quality cardiopulmonary resuscitation is not compromised while diagnosing/excluding some of the potential causes of cardiac arrest. SummaryPersistent and worsening haemodynamic instability are regarded as clear indications for echocardiography. The focused application of this well established technique within the ALS algorithm provides the resuscitation team with a potentially powerful diagnostic tool that can be used to diagnose/exclude some of the potentially treatable causes of cardiac arrest as well as to guide therapeutic interventions. The impact of routine periresuscitation echocardiography on patient outcomes both for in-hospital and prehospital care remains an exciting avenue for future research.