Why the study?
Is intracardiac echocardiography feasible for visualizing cardiac structures and function in an in vivo dog model?
Is intracardiac echocardiography feasible for visualizing cardiac structures and function in an in vivo dog model?
Intracardiac echocardiography is feasible in an in vivo animal model, providing high-quality images of cardiac structures and function.
Feasibility in a canine model does not support clinical use; leaves open translation to human intracardiac echocardiography.
The traditional transthoracic and transesophageal echocardiographic examination have proven to be useful imaging tools for studying cardiac morphology, pathology, and function. Recently, catheter-based ultrasound transducers have been available for intravascular ultrasonic imaging. We supposed that echocardiographic examination performed from within the heart itself can provide useful information about cardiac structure and function, especially in settings where transthoracic or transesophageal echocardiography may be technically difficult to perform or poorly tolerated by the patient. To explore this concept, we performed intracardiac echocardiography in vivo in 22 dogs using both 5-MHz and 20-MHz transducers. High-quality images were obtained in all animals. Using the higher frequency transducer, detailed images with only a limited depth of field were obtained. With the 5-MHz transducer, a comprehensive cardiac examination was feasible from within the right atrium and inferior vena cava. We were able to visualize the great vessels, all cardiac valves, and cardiac chambers in a multitude of imaging planes. Alterations in ventricular function were instantly recognized. Color Doppler capabilities allowed visualization of flow abnormalities as well. We conclude that intracardiac echocardiography is feasible and could be potentially useful in certain clinical situations. With further research and development, this technique may have an important clinical impact in cardiac therapy and diagnosis.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Schwartz et al. (1990) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: