Echocardiography-Based Hemodynamic Management of Left Ventricular Diastolic Dysfunction: A Feasibility and Safety Study

Poor Agreement Between Preoperative Transthoracic Echocardiography and Intraoperative Transesophageal Echocardiography for Grading Diastolic Dysfunction

BACKGROUND

Guidelines for the evaluation and grading of diastolic dysfunction are available for transthoracic echocardiography (TTE). Transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) is used for this purpose intraoperatively but the level of agreement between these 2 imaging modalities for grading diastolic dysfunction is unknown. We assessed agreement between awake preoperative TTE and intraoperative TEE for grading diastolic dysfunction.

METHODS

In 98 patients undergoing cardiac surgery, key Doppler measurements were obtained using TTE and TEE at the following time points: TTE before anesthesia induction (TTEawake), TTE following anesthesia induction (TTEanesth), and TEE following anesthesia induction (TEEanesth). The primary endpoint was grade of diastolic dysfunction categorized by a simplified algorithm, and measured by TTEawake and TEEanesth, for which the weighted κ statistic assessed observed agreement beyond chance. Secondary endpoints were peak early diastolic lateral mitral annular tissue velocity (e'lat) and the ratio of peak early diastolic mitral inflow velocity (E) to e'lat (E/e'lat), measured by TTEawake and TEEanesth, were compared using Bland-Altman limits of agreement.

RESULTS

Disagreement in grading diastolic dysfunction by ≥1 grade occurred in 43 (54%) of 79 patients and by ≥2 grades in 8 (10%) patients with paired measurements for analysis, yielding a weighted κ of 0.35 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.19-0.51) for the observed level of agreement beyond chance. Bland-Altman analysis of paired data for e'lat and E/e'lat demonstrated a mean difference (95% CI) of 0.51 (-0.06 to 1.09) and 0.70 (0.07-1.34), respectively, for measurements made by TTEawake compared to TEEanesth. The percentage (95% CI) of paired measurements for e'lat and E/e'lat that lay outside the [-2, +2] study-specified boundary of acceptable agreement was 36% (27%-48%) and 39% (29%-51%), respectively. Results were generally robust to sensitivity analyses, including comparing measurements between TTEawake and TTEanesth, between TTEanesth and TEEanesth, and after regrading diastolic dysfunction by the American Society of Echocardiography (ASE)/European Association of CardioVascular Imaging (EACVI) algorithm.

CONCLUSIONS

There was poor agreement between TTEawake and TEEanesth for grading diastolic dysfunction by a simplified algorithm, with disagreement by ≥1 grade in 54% and by ≥2 grades in 10% of the evaluable cohort. Future studies, including comparing the prognostic utility of TTEawake and TEEanesth for clinically important adverse outcomes that may be a consequence of diastolic dysfunction, are needed to understand whether this disagreement reflects random variability in Doppler variables, misclassification by the changed technique and physiological conditions of intraoperative TEE, or the accurate detection of a clinically relevant change in diastolic dysfunction.

Rescue Transesophageal Echocardiography: A Narrative Review of Current Knowledge and Practice

Perioperative transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) has been part of clinical activity for more than 40 years. During this period, TEE has evolved in terms of technology and clinical applications beyond the initial fields of cardiology and cardiac surgery. The benefits of TEE in the diagnosis and management of acute hemodynamic and respiratory collapse have been recognized in noncardiac surgery and by other specialties too. This natural progress led to the development of rescue TEE, a relatively recent clinical application that extends the use of TEE and makes it accessible to a large group of clinicians and patients requiring acute care. In this review, the authors appraise the current clinical applications and evidence base around this topic. The authors provide a thorough review of the various image acquisition protocols, clinical benefits, and compare it with the more frequently used transthoracic echocardiography. Furthermore, the authors have reviewed the current training and credentialing pathways. Overall, rescue TEE is a highly attractive and useful point-of-care examination, but the current evidence base is limited and the technical protocols, training, and credentialing processes are not standardized. There is a need for adequate guidelines and high-quality research to support its application as a bedside rescue tool.

Goal-directed haemodynamic therapy during general anaesthesia for noncardiac surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

During general anaesthesia for noncardiac surgery, there remain knowledge gaps regarding the effect of goal-directed haemodynamic therapy on patient-centred outcomes.

METHODS

Included clinical trials investigated goal-directed haemodynamic therapy during general anaesthesia in adults undergoing noncardiac surgery and reported at least one patient-centred postoperative outcome. PubMed and Embase were searched for relevant articles on March 8, 2021. Two investigators performed abstract screening, full-text review, data extraction, and bias assessment. The primary outcomes were mortality and hospital length of stay, whereas 15 postoperative complications were included based on availability. From a main pool of comparable trials, meta-analyses were performed on trials with homogenous outcome definitions. Certainty of evidence was evaluated using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE).

RESULTS

The main pool consisted of 76 trials with intermediate risk of bias for most outcomes. Overall, goal-directed haemodynamic therapy might reduce mortality (odds ratio=0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.64 to 1.09) and shorten length of stay (mean difference=-0.72 days; 95% CI, -1.10 to -0.35) but with low certainty in the evidence. For both outcomes, larger effects favouring goal-directed haemodynamic therapy were seen in abdominal surgery, very high-risk surgery, and using targets based on preload variation by the respiratory cycle. However, formal tests for subgroup differences were not statistically significant. Goal-directed haemodynamic therapy decreased risk of several postoperative outcomes, but only infectious outcomes and anastomotic leakage reached moderate certainty of evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

Goal-directed haemodynamic therapy during general anaesthesia might decrease mortality, hospital length of stay, and several postoperative complications. Only infectious postoperative complications and anastomotic leakage reached moderate certainty in the evidence.

TAPB and RSB protects cardiac diastolic function in elderly patients undergoing abdominopelvic surgery: a retrospective cohort study

Background

Diastolic dysfunction, an early manifestation and clinical symptom of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, can be influenced by various anesthesia management strategies. Trans-esophageal echocardiography was used to undertake to assess left ventricular diastolic function during anesthesia maintenance using sevoflurane alone and sevoflurane combining with transversus abdominis plane block and rectus sheath block in elderly patients with diastolic dysfunction undergoing abdominopelvic surgery.

Methods

Thirty-eight patients were divided into two groups in this retrospective study, sevoflurane and sevoflurane combining with TAPB and RSB according to employing different anesthesia maintenance schemes. The parameters HR, MAP, CVP, E, A, E/A, e, a, e/a, and E/a were obtained immediately after anesthesia induction hemodynamics stability (HR1, MAP1, CVP1, E1, A1, E1/A1, e1, a1, e1/a1, and E1/a1) and 1 hour later (HR2, MAP2, CVP2, E2, A2, E2/A2, e2, a2, e2/a2, and E2/a2).

Results

Transmitral diastolic Doppler flow characteristics illustrated E/A significant decreases in the S group but increases in the ST group (p = 0.02 < 0.05) 1 hour after anesthesia induction hemodynamic stability. Tissue Doppler imaging characteristics showed a more significant increase e/a (P = 0.005 < 0.05) and decreases in a value (p = 0.009 < 0.05) in the ST group 1 hour after anesthesia induction hemodynamics stability.

Conclusions

Maintaining anesthesia with sevoflurane combining with TAPB and RSB was more suitable for protecting cardiac diastolic function than sevoflurane alone in elderly patients with diastolic dysfunction undergoing open abdominal and pelvic surgery.

Transesophageal Versus Transthoracic Echocardiography for Assessment of Left Ventricular Diastolic Function

Background

Transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) has not been compared to transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) for assessment of left ventricular diastolic function (LVDF). Left ventricular diastolic dysfunction is common in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), a disease model of premature myocardial disease.

Methods

66 patients with SLE (mean age 36±12 years, 91% women) and 26 age-and-sex matched healthy volunteers (mean age 34±11 years, 85% women) underwent TEE immediately followed by TTE. From basal four-chamber views, mitral inflow E and A velocities, E/A ratio, E deceleration time, isovolumic relaxation time, septal and lateral mitral E' and A' velocities, septal E'/A' ratio, mitral E to septal and lateral E' ratios, and pulmonary veins systolic to diastolic peak velocities ratio were measured. Measurements were averaged over 3 cardiac cycles and performed by 2 independent observers.

Results

LVDF parameters were worse in patients than in controls by TEE and TTE (all p≤0.03). Most LVDF parameters were similar within each group by TEE and TTE (all p≥0.17). By both techniques, mitral E and A, mitral and septal E/A ratios, septal and lateral E', septal and lateral E/E' ratios, and average E/E' ratio were highly correlated (r=0.64-0.96, all p≤0.003); E deceleration time, isovolumic relaxation time, and septal A' velocities were moderately correlated (r=0.43-0.54, all p≤0.03); and pulmonary veins systolic to diastolic ratio showed the lowest correlation (r=0.27, p=0.04).

Conclusion

By TEE and TTE, LVDF parameters were worse in SLE patients than in controls; and in both groups, LVDF parameters assessed by TEE and TTE were similar and significantly correlated.

Perioperative transesophageal echocardiography for non-cardiac surgery

PURPOSE

The use of transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) has evolved to include patients undergoing high-risk non-cardiac procedures and patients with significant cardiac disease undergoing non-cardiac surgery. Implementation of basic TEE education in training programs has increased across a broad spectrum of procedures in the perioperative arena. This paper describes the use of perioperative TEE in non-cardiac surgery and provides an overview of the basic TEE examination.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

Perioperative TEE is used to monitor hemodynamic parameters in non-cardiac procedures where there is a high risk of hemodynamic instability. Its use extends to include moderate-risk procedures for patients with significant cardiac diseases such as low ejection fraction, hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, severe valve lesions, or congenital heart disease. Vascular procedures involving the aorta, blunt trauma, and liver transplantation are all examples of procedures that may benefit from TEE. Transesophageal echocardiography examination allows assessment of volume status, ventricular function, diagnosis of gross valvular pathology and pericardial tamponade, as well as close monitoring of cardiac output, response to therapy, and the impact of ongoing surgical manipulation. In patients with unexplained and unexpected hemodynamic instability, "rescue TEE" can be used to help identify the underlying cause.

CONCLUSIONS

Perioperative TEE is emerging as a preferred tool to manage hemodynamics in high-risk procedures and in high-risk patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery. A rescue TEE examination protocol is a helpful approach for early identification of the etiology of hemodynamic instability.

Comparative Effectiveness and Harms of Intraoperative Transesophageal Echocardiography in Noncardiac Surgery: A Systematic Review

Intraoperative use of transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) has become commonplace in high-risk noncardiac surgeries but the balance of benefits and harms remains unclear. This systematic review investigated the comparative effectiveness and harms of intraoperative TEE in noncardiac surgery. We searched Ovid MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library from 1946 to March 2017. Two reviewers independently screened the literature for eligibility. Studies were assessed for the risk of selection bias, confounding, measurement bias, and reporting bias. Three comparative and 13 noncomparative studies were included. Intraoperative TEE was employed in a total of 1912 of 3837 patients. Studies had important design limitations. Data were not amenable to quantitative synthesis due to clinical and methodological diversity. Reported incidence of TEE complications ranged from 0% to 1.7% in patients undergoing various procedures (5 studies, 540 patients). No serious adverse events were observed for mixed surgeries (2 studies, 197 patients). Changes in surgical or medical management attributable to the use of TEE were noted in 17% to 81% of patients (7 studies, 558 patients). The only randomized trial of intraoperative TEE was grossly underpowered to detect meaningful differences in 30-day postoperative outcomes. There is lack of high-quality evidence of effectiveness and harms of intraoperative TEE in the management of non-cardiac surgeries. Evidence, however, indicates timely evaluation of cardiac function and structure, and hemodynamics. Future studies should be comparative evaluating confounder-adjusted impact on both intraoperative and 30-day postoperative clinical outcomes.

Perioperative Diastolic Dysfunction in Patients Undergoing Noncardiac Surgery Is an Independent Risk Factor for Cardiovascular Events

Background

The prognostic value of perioperative diastolic dysfunction (PDD) in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery remains uncertain, and the current guidelines do not recognize PDD as a perioperative risk factor. This systematic review aimed to investigate whether existing evidence supports PDD as an independent predictor of adverse events after noncardiac surgery.

Methods

Ovid MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and Google search engine were searched for English-language citations in April 2015 investigating PDD as a risk factor for perioperative adverse events in adult patients undergoing noncardiac surgery. Two reviewers independently assessed the study risk of bias. Extracted data were verified. Random-effects model was used for meta-analysis, and reviewers’ certainty was graded.

Results

Seventeen studies met eligibility criteria; however, 13 contributed to evidence synthesis. The entire body of evidence addressing the research question was based on a total of 3,876 patients. PDD was significantly associated with pulmonary edema/congestive heart failure (odds ratio [OR], 3.90; 95% CI, 2.23 to 6.83; 3 studies; 996 patients), myocardial infarction (OR, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.14 to 2.67; 3 studies; 717 patients), and the composite outcome of major adverse cardiovascular events (OR, 2.03; 95% CI, 1.24 to 3.32; 4 studies; 1,814 patients). Evidence addressing other outcomes had low statistical power, but higher long-term cardiovascular mortality was observed in patients undergoing open vascular repair (OR, 3.00; 95% CI, 1.50 to 6.00). Reviewers’ overall certainty of the evidence was moderate.

Conclusion

Evidence of moderate certainty indicates that PDD is an independent risk factor for adverse cardiovascular outcomes after noncardiac surgery.