Journal of intensive care medicine · 2025
Diagnostic and Therapeutic Impact of Critical Care Echocardiography in Patients Admitted in the Intensive Care Unit for Circulatory Or Respiratory Failure Report from an Expert Center.
СтатьяНаблюдательное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Penaud Victor, Charron Cyril, Garrigues Eve, Haruel Pierre-Alexandre, Jullien Edouard, Jouffroy Romain, Meireles Sylvie, Petit Matthieu, Prigent Amélie, Beaucote Victor, Salama Guillaume, Joseph Adrien, Vieillard-Baron Antoine
Аннотация
PurposeCritical Care Echocardiography (CCE) is now a major tool in assessments of ICU patients. We aimed to evaluate its clinical impact in patients admitted to the intensive care unit for acute respiratory failure (ARF) or shock.MethodsWe conducted a single-center retrospective observational study of all patients admitted between January 1th and December 31st 2019 for ARF or shock, who received CCE in the first 12 h of admission. The primary outcome was the therapeutic impact associated with CCE. Secondary outcomes included differences in therapeutic impact between ARF and shock patients, and between trans-thoracic (TTE) and trans-esophageal (TEE) CCE.Results486 patients were potentially eligible, 109 were excluded because CCE was performed after 12 h or because of missing CCE report. 329 patients were analyzed, 31% with shock, 44% with ARF, 25% with both. TTE was performed in 71%, TEE in 29%. All TEE patients were invasively mechanically ventilated and 65% of invasively ventilated patients underwent TEE. No TEE-related complications were observed. CCE was followed with 363 therapeutic interventions in 231 (70%) patients within 2 h. The most common involved hemodynamic optimization in 193 patients (59%), including fluid expansion (129 patients, 39%), vasopressor initiation (39 patients, 12%), vasopressor dose adjustment (79 patients, 24%), inotrope initiation (15 patients, 4.5%), inotrope dose adjustment (5 patients), and others like cardioversion (4 patients) and veno-arterial ECMO implantation (3 patients). TEE patients were more likely to receive therapeutic changes, notably significantly more fluids (53% vs 34% p = 0.0014) and had more frequent vasopressor dose adjustments (64% vs 24% p < 0.001).ConclusionsCCE was followed with therapeutic interventions in nearly 70% of patients admitted for ARF or shock, emphasizing its diagnostic value. Hemodynamic optimization was the primary intervention. We have not found any complications or adverse events of TEE in our cohort.