Physical signs in congestive heart failure

Pediatric cardiac emergencies

Successful management of pediatric cardiac emergencies requires an accurate diagnosis to institute an appropriate plan of therapy. The diagnosis, however, is not always straightforward, as evidenced by the nonspecific clinical picture that can be presented by congenital heart defects. Entertaining the possibility of a cardiac problem in neonates with pulmonary symptoms unresponsive to standard therapies is crucial for successful management of patients with congenital heart disease. In addition to ventilatory support, prostaglandin E1 infusions or emergency interventional cardiac catheterization is often a life-saving initial measure in patients with acutely decompensated congenital cardiac lesions that require a patent ductus arteriosus for survival. Pericardial tamponade is associated with various acquired and iatrogenic causes. Emergent pericardiocentesis is mandatory when cardiovascular compromise occurs. The goal of anesthetic management is to maintain cardiac output. With the increasing use of central venous catheters in neonatal ICUs and the high mortality rate for central venous catheter-related cardiac tamponade, the diagnosis must be considered in any patient with a central venous catheter in situ who acutely develops unexplained hypotension, bradycardia, and diminished pulses. Arrhythmias also can cause hemodynamic instability in infants and children. Supraventricular tachycardia is by far the most common emergently presenting arrhythmia in the pediatric population. Unstable patients require immediate intravenous adenosine or synchronized cardioversion. Complete heart block is rare, but it can lead to congestive heart failure and occasionally to cardiovascular collapse and sudden death. Emergency treatment of complete heart block includes pharmacologic support and temporary or permanent pacemaker placement as indicated. In infants, congestive heart failure usually is related to congenital heart disease, whereas in older children, it tends to be secondary to an acquired cause. Supportive measures, fluid restriction, and inotropic support are the principles of initial treatment. Prompt recognition and initiation of appropriate therapy in pediatric cardiac emergencies are essential for favorable outcomes.

Interobserver agreement and accuracy of bedside estimation of right and left ventricular ejection fraction in acute myocardial infarction

Ninety-eight patients with acute myocardial infarction were examined by 3 clinicians who, independently of each other, gave an estimate of left ventricular (LV) and right ventricular (RV) ejection fraction (EF) in each patient. Their estimates were based on physical examination, chest x-ray, electrocardiogram, patient history and clinical course during admission. Ejection fractions were estimated as belonging to 1 of 4 categories: normal (LVEF greater than or equal to 0.53, RVEF greater than or equal to 0.57), mildly reduced (LVEF 0.40 to 0.52, RVEF 0.45 to 0.56), moderately reduced (LVEF 0.30 to 0.39, RVEF 0.35 to 0.44) or severely reduced (LVEF less than 0.30, RVEF less than 0.35). Radionuclide ventriculography was carried out immediately after the physical examination. LVEF was correctly estimated in 43% of all examinations, deviated from radionuclide LVEF by 1 LVEF category in 45% and by 2 LVEF categories in 12%. The 3 clinicians agreed on estimated LVEF in only 32% of the patients. RVEF was correctly estimated in 67% of the examinations, but none of the clinicians identified greater than 43% of the relatively few patients with reduced radionuclide RVEF and they greatly disagreed as to who among the patients had a reduced RVEF. Previous myocardial infarction, electrocardiographic infarct location, Killip class, physical signs of left- and right-sided heart failure, radiographic pulmonary congestion and cardiomegaly were analyzed to determine which were the most helpful in predicting LVEF and RVEF. The results disclosed that several variables, traditionally believed to be reliable indexes of reduced ventricular function, were surprisingly poor predictors of LVEF and RVEF.