Echo Research and Practice最新文献

Current guidelines do not advise follow-up echocardiograms after ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), unless the left ventricular ejection fraction is ≤40%. We present an interesting case of left ventricular pseudo-aneurysm-diagnosed 6 months after index STEMI presentation. Follow-up echocardiogram was performed in her case, due to jaw pain during routine haemodialysis. The patient was successfully treated with percutaneous closure device. This case raises the question of whether echo follow-up should be routinely advised after STEMI-even in those with minimal cardiac symptoms.

Prosthetic valve thrombosis is a rare but serious complication of mechanical valve replacement requiring prompt diagnosis and treatment. Unfortunately, it is often difficult to evaluate this based on single modality imaging alone. We demonstrate a case where the use of both 3D-TOE and valve fluoroscopy allowed for the differentiation between prosthetic valve thrombosis vs prosthetic mitral valve dyssychrony. Using transoesphageal echocardiography, it is noted that there is valve dyssynchrony; however, it is unclear if there is leaflet restriction (Video 1). Using fluoroscopy, it can be seen clearly that their overall mobility is normal (Video 2). Additionally, using 3D-TOE it can be clearly noted that there is no evidence of pannus or thrombus (Video 3). Using these two imaging modalities in concert facilitated the clear diagnosis of valve dyssynchrony vs valve thrombosis.

Aims: To assess left ventricular (LV) function before and after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) using conventional echocardiographic parameters and global longitudinal LV strain (GLS) and compare outcomes between Edwards S3 and Evolut R valves.

Methods and results: Data were collected for consecutive patients undergoing TAVI at Hammersmith hospital between 2015 and 2018. Of the 303 patients, those with coronary artery disease and atrial fibrillation were excluded leading to a total of 85 patients, which constituted our study group. The mean follow-up was 49 ± 39 days. In total, 60% of patients were treated with Edwards S3 and 40% Evolut R. TAVI resulted in an early improvement of GLS (-13.96 to -15.25%, P = 0.01) but not ejection fraction (EF) (47.6 to 50.1%, P = 0.09). LV mass also improved, especially in patients with marked baseline LV hypertrophy (P < 0.001). There were no appreciable differences of LV function improvement and overall LV remodelling after TAVI between the two types of valves used (P = 0.14).

Conclusions: TAVI results in reverse remodelling and improvement of GLS, especially in patients with impaired baseline LV function. There were no differences in the extent of LV function improvement between Edwards S3 and Evolut R valves but there was a greater incidence of aortic regurgitation with Evolut R.

Chronic aortic regurgitation (AR) patients typically remain asymptomatic for a long time. Left ventricular mechanics, namely global longitudinal strain (GLS), has been associated with outcomes in AR patients. The authors conducted a systematic review to summarize and appraise GLS impact on mortality, the need for aortic valve replacement (AVR) and disease progression in AR patients. A literature search was performed using these key terms 'aortic regurgitation' and 'longitudinal strain' looking at all randomized and nonrandomized studies conducted on chronic aortic regurgitation. The search yielded six observational studies published from 2011 and 2018 with a total of 1571 patients with moderate to severe chronic AR. Only two studies included all-cause mortality as their endpoint. The other studies looked at the association between GLS with AVR and disease progression. The mean follow-up period was 4.2 years. We noted a great variability of clinical, methodological and/or statistical origin. Thus, meta-analytic portion of our study was limited. Despite a relevant heterogeneity, an impaired GLS was associated with adverse cardiac outcomes. Left ventricular GLS may offer incremental value in risk stratification and decision-making.

The British Society of Echocardiography has previously outlined a minimum dataset for a standard transthoracic echocardiogram, and this remains the basis on which an echocardiographic study should be performed. The importance of ultrasound in excluding critical conditions that may require urgent treatment is well known. Several point-of-care echo protocols have been developed for use by non-echocardiography specialists. However, these protocols are often only used in specific circumstances and are usually limited to 2D echocardiography. Furthermore, although the uptake in training for these protocols has been reasonable, there is little in the way of structured support available from accredited sonographers in the ongoing training and re-accreditation of those undertaking these point-of-care scans. In addition, it is well recognised that the provision of echocardiography on a 24/7 basis is extremely challenging, particularly outside of tertiary cardiac centres. Consequently, following discussions with NHS England, the British Society of Echocardiography has developed the Level 1 echocardiogram in order to support the rapid identification of critical cardiac pathology that may require emergency treatment. It is intended that these scans will be performed by non-specialists in echocardiography and crucially are not designed to replace a full standard transthoracic echocardiogram. Indeed, it is expected that a significant number of patients, in whom a Level 1 echocardiogram is required, will need to have a full echocardiogram performed as soon as is practically possible. This document outlines the minimum dataset for a Level 1 echocardiogram. The accreditation process for Level 1 echo is described separately.

The authors and journal apologise for errors in the above paper, which appeared in the March 2020 issue of Echo Research and Practice (volume 7, pages G1–G18, https://doi.org/10.1530/ERP-19-0050).The errors relate to values given in Table 2 on page G6. The original text gave the Male moderate LVIDd LV dimension as 61–65 mm, the Male mild LVIDs LV dimension as 41–45 mm and the Female mild LVMi LV mass as 98–115 g/m2.This should have stated that the Male moderate LVIDd LV dimension is 62–65 mm, the Male mild LVIDs LV dimension is 42–45 mm and the Female mild LVMi LV mass is 100–115 g/m2. The corrected Table 2 is given in full below:

The structure and function of the right side of the heart is influenced by a wide range of physiological and pathological conditions. Quantification of right heart parameters is important in a variety of clinical scenarios including diagnosis, prognostication, and monitoring response to therapy. Although echocardiography remains the first-line imaging investigation for right heart assessment, published guidance is relatively sparse in comparison to that for the left ventricle. This guideline document from the British Society of Echocardiography describes the principles and practical aspects of right heart assessment by echocardiography, including quantification of chamber dimensions and function, as well as assessment of valvular function. While cut-off values for normality are included, a disease-oriented approach is advocated due to the considerable heterogeneity of structural and functional changes seen across the spectrum of diseases affecting the right heart. The complex anatomy of the right ventricle requires special considerations and echocardiographic techniques, which are set out in this document. The clinical relevance of right ventricular diastolic function is introduced, with practical guidance for its assessment. Finally, the relatively novel techniques of three-dimensional right ventricular echocardiography and right ventricular speckle tracking imaging are described. Despite these techniques holding considerable promise, issues relating to reproducibility and inter-vendor variation have limited their clinical utility to date.

This guideline presents reference limits for use in echocardiographic practice, updating previous guidance from the British Society of Echocardiography. The rationale for change is discussed, in addition to how the reference intervals were defined and the current limitations to their use. The importance of interpretation of echocardiographic parameters within the clinical context is explored, as is grading of abnormality. Each of the following echo parameters are discussed and updated in turn: left ventricular linear dimensions and LV mass; left ventricular volumes; left ventricular ejection fraction; left atrial size; right heart parameters; aortic dimensions; and tissue Doppler imaging. There are several important conceptual changes to the assessment of the heart’s structure and function within this guideline. New terminology for left ventricular function and left atrial size are introduced. The British Society of Echocardiography has advocated a new approach to the assessment of the aortic root, the right heart, and clarified the optimal methodology for assessment of LA size. The British Society of Echocardiography has emphasized a preference to use, where feasible, indexed measures over absolute values for any chamber size.