Key result
Transthoracic echocardiography in the prone position using an external TEE probe yielded slightly lower mean ejection fraction (60.3% vs 63.1%, P=0.014) compared to standard supine TTE.
Why the study?
Transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) in the prone position is challenging, and the reproducibility and correlation of measurements obtained using an external TEE probe versus standard supine TTE were unknown.
Does transthoracic echocardiography in the prone position using an external TEE probe provide comparable measurements to standard supine TTE in normal adults?
Cross-Sectional (n=30)
Does transthoracic echocardiography in the prone position using an external TEE probe provide comparable measurements to standard supine TTE in normal adults?
Absolute Event Rate: 60.3% vs 63.1%
p-value: p=0.014
Assessment of cardiac dimensions and systolic function in the prone position using a transthoracic TEE probe is feasible and agrees well with standard supine TTE for LV and aortic dimensions, though LA dimensions and EF are slightly lower.
May enable TTE in prone patients; leaves open reproducibility and correlation with standard supine measurements.
Background Transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) in prone position is challenging. Innovative use of transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) probe to perform TTE for such patients has been described; but reproducibility and correlation of the TTE measurements by this technique with those obtained by the standard supine TTE study are still unknown. Methods We enrolled 30 non–COVID‐19 individuals, with a mean (SD) age 35 (10.9) years and 11 females, to study the agreement between the transthoracic measurements of the left ventricular (LV), left atrial (LA), aortic dimensions, and ejection fraction (EF) obtained in prone position using an external TEE probe versus the standard supine position using the conventional TTE probe. Results There were no significant differences between LV end‐diastolic and end‐systolic diameters, septal wall thickness, posterior wall thickness, and aortic root dimensions in the prone versus the supine positions, while the mean EF (60.3% vs 63.1%, P = .014) and mean LA dimensions (1.8 vs 1.9 cm/m 2 , P < .001) were significantly lower in the prone position. The mean time of scans was significantly longer in the prone as compared to the supine position (12.5 vs 4.5 minutes, P < .001). All supine studies had good quality while in the prone position four studies were of poor quality, and one was nondiagnostic. Conclusions Assessment of cardiac dimensions and systolic function in the prone position using transthoracic TEE probe was feasible. LV and aortic dimensions agreed well with the standard TTE in supine position; however, LA dimensions and EF were lower in the prone position.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Taha et al. (2021) conducted a cross-sectional in Normal adults (non-COVID-19) (n=30). Transthoracic echocardiography in prone position using an external TEE probe vs. Standard supine position using conventional TTE probe was evaluated on Mean ejection fraction (p=0.014). Transthoracic echocardiography in the prone position using an external TEE probe yielded slightly lower mean ejection fraction (60.3% vs 63.1%, P=0.014) compared to standard supine TTE.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: