Echocardiography in the sepsis syndromes
© Springer-Verlag 2011
Received: 3 February 2011
Accepted: 15 April 2011
Published: 6 May 2011
Purpose of the review
Non-invasiveness and instantaneous diagnostic capability are prominent features of the use of echocardiography in critical care. Sepsis and septic shock represent complex situations where early hemodynamic assessment and support are among the keys to therapeutic success. In this review, we discuss the range of applications of echocardiography in the management of the septic patient, and propose an echocardiography-based goal-oriented hemodynamic approach to septic shock.
Echocardiography can play a key role in the critical septic patient management, by excluding cardiac causes for sepsis, and mostly by guiding hemodynamic management of those patients in whom sepsis reaches such a severity to jeopardize cardiovascular function. In recent years, there have been both increasing evidence and diffusion of the use of echocardiography as monitoring tool in the patients with hemodynamic compromise. Also thanks to echocardiography, the features of the well-known sepsis-related myocardial dysfunction have been better characterized. Furthermore, many of the recent echocardiographic indices of volume responsiveness have been validated in populations of septic shock patients.
Although not proven yet in terms of patient outcome, echocardiography can be regarded as an ideal monitoring tool in the septic patient, as it allows (a) first line differential diagnosis of shock and early recognition of sepsis-related myocardial dysfunction; (b) detection of pre-existing cardiac pathology, that yields precious information in septic shock management; (c) comprehensive hemodynamic monitoring through a systematic approach based on repeated bedside assessment; (d) integration with other monitoring devices; and (e) screening for cardiac source of sepsis.
Rationale for the use of echocardiography in the septic critical patient
Sepsis and septic shock (SS) are common causes of cardiovascular failure in critical care and are the most frequent causes of mortality in intensive care units [1, 2]. SS is one of the most complex hemodynamic failure syndromes, as it may imply derangement of all the three mainstays of cardiovascular homeostasis, each one to a variable degree: absolute or relative reduction in central blood volume, peripheral vasodilatation and myocardial failure may coexist and variably overlap in different phases of septic shock’s course [3, 4]. Echocardiography (ECHO) has nowadays acknowledged clear indications in hemodynamic instability , is increasingly used by intensive and critical care physicians, and is advocated by many as an irreplaceable tool in the approach to and management of the critical patient [6–8]. Many are the reasons that make ECHO suitable for guiding hemodynamic management of septic critical patients at different stages of their critical illness: (1) non-invasiveness, rapidity—in adequately trained hands ECHO has the potential to non-invasively provide at the bedside instantaneous relevant diagnostic information on patients’ cardiovascular status [9, 10]. Even though a comprehensive ECHO examination may be time consuming, time required for a focused, limited ECHO examination ranges from seconds to a dozen of minutes [11, 12]; (2) diagnostic yield, monitoring capabilities—ECHO offers the matchless advantage to perform both detailed functional and morphological assessment of the heart; pathological changes in venous return and vascular tone can then be assessed with dynamic investigation of their consequences on the heart and the great vessels [13–15]; (3) impact on patient management—even in patients already monitored invasively, both transthoracic ECHO (TTE) and transesophageal ECHO (TEE) add new relevant information that leads to changes in therapy in more than 50% of cases [12, 16, 17], the majority of which concern volume status and inotropy ; (4) flexibility—its use is scalable from a limited/focused to a comprehensive examination, according to time available and complexity of clinical queries. Either TTE or TEE can alternatively be used, according to availability and to the specific information needed; (5) accuracy—the use of ECHO as hemodynamic monitoring tool has already been validated in populations of septic shock patients , so as have been many of the most recent ECHO indices of volume responsiveness . ECHO seems to be more accurate than the standardized strategy proposed by the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines in the detection of the dominant features of the failing circulation . Indeed, a simplified qualitative approach has demonstrated to be accurate enough ; (6) specific cardiac issues related to sepsis—the heart, main target of the ECHO examination, frequently represents itself the core of the septic process, being either “a victim” (when sepsis-related myocardial dysfunction develops) or its source (in the context of endocarditis).
The purpose of this review was to describe ECHO applications and potential findings in the critical septic patient, and provide a framework for the practical approach with Echo to SS management, both at onset and in the subsequent course of the disease.
Early management of the septic shock patient: focused echocardiography
Echocardiographic findings at shock onset
LV and RV hyperkinesia
IVC respiratory collapse (spontaneous ventilation)
None of the above (but rather a variable degree of LV or RV dysfunction) in the setting of relevant pre-existing cardiac disease
SS superimposing on pre-existing cardiac dysfunction, or sepsis-triggered cardiac derangements (myocardial ischemia), or aggressive mechanical ventilation (hindering RV function in the context of ARDS, pneumonia) may determine from the beginning a different pattern, where typical features are missing, and RV or LV dysfunction appears as the main finding. Recognition of a relevant dilatation of any cardiac chamber other than the RV (the only chamber that can dilate acutely) or dilatation and hypertrophy of the RV gives clues toward a subjacent chronic dysfunction, avoids misdiagnosis of a primary cardiogenic aetiology of shock , and bears prognostic information linked to relevant co-morbidity. Severe LV hypertrophy and/or LV diastolic dysfunction may represent potential pitfalls on ventricular size-based volume status assessment: in this case, persistent LV small dimension does not equate to safe fluid infusion. Fluid administration should altogether not be gauged on LV or RV dimensions in the aforementioned settings of co-existing chronic heart disease, but rather on inferior vena cava size, when small, and on volume-responsiveness indices (vide infra).
Additional focused ultrasound investigations (lung, abdominal, soft tissues, beyond the scope of this review) in a multi-focused transversal approach [30, 31] should help in confirming suspicion of a septic etiology of the critical state and save time in early institution of empirical antibiotic therapy, upon appropriate bacteriological sampling.
Monitoring the patient with septic shock: comprehensive echocardiography
While pattern recognition may suffice in the very early approach to SS , with ongoing resuscitation or more complex situations (ex. co-existing disease), a systematic step-by-step assessment is necessary to monitor hemodynamics. Repeated bedside assessment at each hemodynamic deterioration or significant therapeutic variation is the key to the use of Echo in this hemodynamic fashion  and allows for prompt recognition and correction of the specific causes of cardiovascular instability, which is mandatory in SS management [20, 24, 33]. ECHO findings should be appropriately interpreted in the clinical context and integrated with available data from other monitoring tools (systemic arterial mean pressure, central venous pressure and saturation, arterial blood lactates, urine output), especially with the ones concerning the adequacy of tissue perfusion, on which echocardiography is blind. TEE always enables a complete assessment, inclusive of detailed heart–lung interactions and fine volume responsiveness evaluation, cardiac output assessment, and left-ventricular end-diastolic pressures estimation, when required. When adequate views can be achieved, TTE allows for even less invasive and thus more repeatable assessment, especially once key hemodynamic features have already been focused. ECHO reporting and storage of images and video clips allow for accurate comparison of findings obtained at different time spots and should thus be mandatory.
Targets of the echocardiographic hemodynamic assessment
Volume status, volume responsiveness
LV systolic function
RV systolic function
Systemic arterial resistances (indirect, exclusion criteria)
LV filling pressures
Low output state
Inadequate central blood volume
Echocardiographic indices of volume responsiveness
LV systolic dysfunction
LV systolic function is assessed either visually (qualitatively), or by means of widely used 2D measurements (quantitatively). These are based on the percentage variation of LV size from end-diastole to end-systole, either referring to its diameter (FS, fractional shortening), its area (FAC, fractional area change), or its volume (EF, ejection fraction).
RV systolic dysfunction
Low peripheral vascular tone
Echocardiography offers theoretically the tools to calculate systemic arterial vascular resistance but with a cumbersome method and infrequent clinical applicability. In clinical practice, sepsis-related vasodilatation is diagnosed with exclusion criteria: persistence of hypotension despite adequate preload and preserved (or pharmacologically normalized) biventricular systolic function, and thus absence of a low-output state, invariably means a need for an increase in systemic arterial vascular tone . As mentioned above, also in some situations of volume responsiveness upward titration of vasoconstrictors is indicated.
LV diastolic dysfunction, LV filling pressure
Additionally, assessment of LV diastolic properties and LV filling pressures estimation may be of use. Diastolic dysfunction has been demonstrated in SS patients using relatively preload-independent parameters, based on mitral annulus tissue Doppler and mitral inflow propagation velocity; not only as associated with systolic dysfunction, but also as isolated impairment of LV relaxation [62, 63]. Even if clinical implications of this still have to be fully clarified, practical impact may be derived for patients with isolated diastolic dysfunction and evidence of elevated LV filling pressures in the context of hypoxemia: fluid restriction and diuretics are then consistent choices (patients with systolic dysfunction do not viceversa risk to remain undetected, as they already usually are submitted to such a tretment, toghether with inotropes). Various Doppler-derived parameters provide estimation of LV filling pressure with good correlation to invasively measured pulmonary artery occlusion pressure (PAOP), specifically in septic shock patients populations . In mechanically ventilated patients, mitral E/A < 1.4, pulmonary vein S/D > 0.65 and systolic fraction >44% best predict a PAOP ≤ 18 mmHg ; lateral E/E′ < 8.0 or E/Vp < 1.7 predicts a PAOP ≤ 18 mmHg with a sensitivity of 83 and 80% ; mitral E/A > 2 predicts a PAOP > 18 mmHg with 100% positive predictive value .
Cardiac source of sepsis
IE on native or prosthetic valves is defined on the bases of a well-established set of diagnostic criteria [67, 68], and echocardiography provides for one of the major ones. IE is a severe disease with a high mortality, ranging from 20 to 25%  and up to 45% in patients then admitted to ICU . Echocardiography highly contributes to IE diagnosis, allows for severity assessment, and has a pivotal role in IE management and decision making both on therapy and complications [71, 72].Three potential ECHO findings are deemed to be important criteria in establishing an IE diagnosis (Table 4): (A) mobile echo dense mass attached to valvular or mural endocardium or to implanted material (Fig. 9a–d, Video 9A, B, Video 10–11 ESM), (B) paravalvular fistulae or abscess formation (Fig. 9d, Video 12 ESM), and (C) new disruption or dehiscence of a prosthetic valve (paravalvular leak) (Video 13 ESM). In severely damaged native valves (especially rheumatic), clear identification of small vegetations may be very difficult. Differential diagnosis between prosthetic valve IE and non-obstructive thrombus, or between bioprosthetic valve IE and degeneration, can be very challenging.Table 4
Echocardiographic findings suggestive of endocarditis
Mobile echo dense mass attached to valvular/mural endocardium, or to implanted material
Paravalvular fistulae or abscess formation
New disruption or dehiscence of a prosthetic valve (paravalvular leak)
Relevant differences in diagnostic accuracy for IE exist between the transthoracic and the transesophageal technique. Compared with TTE [73, 74], TEE has greater sensitivity on small vegetations and on mitral valve IE. Both techniques reach high specificity in equal manner, and detection of a vegetating mass with focused TTE in first approach to a shocked patient can be lifesaving.
The clinical context influences TTE and TEE diagnostic capability : while with low IE pre-test probability a negative good-quality TTE can exclude the diagnosis, TEE should be performed on all TTE negative cases with a more-than-low clinical suspicion.
In mechanically ventilated ICU patients TEE is almost invariably needed. It is then mandatory in the assessment of suspected prosthetic valves IE, and in TTE positive cases to identify major valvular complications and guide surgical planning .
Of particular note is that the clinical presentation of IE in acutely ill patients can be very much variable, ranging from a febrile state, to septic or cardiogenic shock, to any embolic manifestation. Echocardiography alone cannot be used to make diagnosis of IE: a combination of clinical-instrumental-microbiological criteria is required, and differential diagnosis between IE vegetations and other intracardiac masses should always be considered.
Even if one-third to a half of IE develop in absence of pre-existing cardiac pathology or prosthetic devices, a high suspicion for IE should be kept for septic patients with prosthetic valves, implantable devices, or known significant native valve pathology, and for ICU bacteriemic patients with unknown septic focus.
IE on indwelling central venous catheters or implantable devices (pace-makers, internal cardioverters-defibrillators) is uncommon due to the lack of the hemodynamic factors usually involved in IE pathogenesis (flow turbulence, high pressure gradients) , but is getting more frequent as a consequence of development and increased use of invasive diagnostic and therapeutic procedures. In an ICU septic patient with no other clear infective focus it should thus be considered, especially if evidence of pulmonary septic embolism exists  (Fig. 9e, f, Video 14 ESM). Besides searching for vegetations on the catheter, from superior vena cava to its implantation on the myocardium, the ECHO exam should seek carefully for IE-associated localizations on right heart valves [77–81]. Visualizing vegetations on implantable devices (mass or sleeve-like) may be difficult, due to artifacts coming from the device itself. Small fibrin strands may represent a difficult differential diagnosis.
Septic thrombus on temporary central venous catheters in ICU patients  and right heart endocarditis following pulmonary heart catheterization have also been described . Finding of masses on central venous catheters, more frequent, should prompt to consider non-septic thrombosis as differential diagnosis with EI. Microbiological data become obviously crucial.
Limitations of Echo in diagnosis and monitoring the critical septic patient
Even if ECHO has been extensively validated as accurate and safe, and is currently employed on septic critical patients by many clinicians, real outcome data related to its use (beyond simple demonstration on impact on patient management) are lacking.
Limitations in its use also exist. Low echogenicity at surface examination matched with contraindications to TEE clearly prevent its use. Whenever there is strict requirement of continuous monitoring (of cardiac output or pulmonary artery pressure) or precise measurement rather than estimation of deemed relevant variables (mainly PAOP or extravascular lung water), ECHO is not the right tool. In centres where a tradition and adequate training on the use of critical care ECHO exist, this is no frequent , and repeated bedside assessment and semi-quantification of hemodynamic variables enable use of ECHO alone as monitoring tool. As it happens with targets of critical care practice other than hemodynamics, integrated monitoring remains fundamental, and ECHO is in the best position to be used in conjunction with other devices (pulse contour technique based cardiac output monitors, pulmonary artery catheter, PiCCO) . Indeed, it can guide choice between them and timing of use. A final issue is represented by time required to the clinician to acquire sufficient competence in critical care ECHO. For applications beyond focused ECHO, particularly comprehensive hemodynamic monitoring, the training may in fact be demanding , and not all physician may be willing to undergo a dedicated training.
Echocardiography marries diagnostic capability with monitoring accuracy, morphological assessment with functional investigation. In the complex scenario of the critical septic patient it has therefore the potential to be regarded as an ideal monitoring tool, in most circumstances used alone, sometimes in combination with other devices. Beyond the very first stages of septic shock, where focused ECHO may suffice, a comprehensive systematic ECHO assessment of cardiac output, left and right systolic ventricular function, volume status and filling pressures is required, and allows for effective hemodynamic management. Unfortunately, outcome studies on the use of ECHO in septic shock are lacking, and are therefore strongly advocated. As a matter of fact, availability of ECHO equipment and adequate training remain actual major limitations on a wider use of ECHO in this setting.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- Angus DC (2001) Epidemiology of severe sepsis in the USA: analysis of incidence, outcome and costs of care. Crit Care Med 29:1303–1310PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Brun-Buisson C (1995) Incidence, risk factors and outcome of severe sepsis and septic shock in adults: a multicenter prospective study in ICU. JAMA 274:968–974PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Magder S (1993) Shock physiology. In: Pinsky M et al (eds) Pathophysiologic foundations of critical care. William & Wilkins, Baltimore, pp 140–160Google Scholar
- Annane D, Bellissant E, Cavaillon JM (2005) Septic shock. Lancet 365:63–78PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- TTE/TEE Appropriateness Criteria Writing Group, Douglas PS, ACCF Appropriateness Criteria Working Group. American College of Cardiology Foundation Quality Strategic Directions Committee Appropriateness Criteria Working Group; American Society of Echocardiography; American College of Emergency Physicians; American Society of Nuclear Cardiology; Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions; Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography; Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance (2007) ACCF/ASE/ACEP/ASNC/SCAI/SCCT/SCMR 2007 appropriateness criteria for transthoracic and transesophageal echocardiography: a report of the ACCF/ASE/ACEP/ASNC/SCAI/SCCT/SCMR. Endorsed by SCCP and SCCM. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 20:787–805Google Scholar
- Cholley BP, Vieillard-Baron A, Mebazaa A (2006) Echocardiography in ICU: time for widespread use. Intensive Care Med 32:9–10PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Seppelt IM (2007) All intensivists need echocardiography skills in the 21st century. Crit Care Resusc 9:286–288PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Price S, Via G, Sloth E, Guarracino F, Breitkreutz R, Catena E, Talmor D, World Interactive Network Focused On Critical Ultrasound ECHO-ICU Group (2008) Echocardiography practice, training and accreditation in the intensive care: document for the World Interactive Network Focused on Critical Ultrasound (WINFOCUS). Cardiovasc Ultrasound 6:49PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Price S, Nicol E, Gibson DG, Evans TW (2006) Echocardiography in the critically ill: current and potential roles. Intensive Care Med 32: 48–59Google Scholar
- Boyd JH, Walley KR (2009) The role of echocardiography in hemodynamic monitoring. Curr Opin Crit Care 15:239–243PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Breitkreutz R, Walcher F, Seeger FH (2007) Focused echocardiographic evaluation in resuscitation management: concept of an advanced life support-conformed algorithm. Crit Care Med 35:S150–S161PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Manasia AR, Nagaraj HM, Kodali RB, Croft LB, Oropello JM, Kohli-Seth R, Leibowitz AB, DelGiudice R, Hufanda JF, Benjamin E, Goldman ME (2005) Feasibility and potential clinical utility of goal-directed transthoracic echocardiography performed by noncardiologist intensivists using a small hand-carried device (SonoHeart) in critically ill patients. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth 19:155–159PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Vignon P (2005) Hemodynamic assessment of critically ill patients using echocardiography Doppler. Curr Opin Crit Care 11:227–234PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Vieillard-Baron A, Prin S, Chergui K, Dubourg O, Jardin F (2003) Hemodynamic instability in sepsis: bedside assessment by Doppler echocardiography. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 168:1270–1276PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Via G, Mongodi S, Venti A, Mojoli F (2009) Ultrasound-enhanced hemodynamic monitoring: echocardiography as a monitoring tool. Minerva Anestesiol 75(Suppl. 1 to No. 7–8): 178–184Google Scholar
- Hüttemann E, Schlenz C, Kara F (2004) The use and safety of TEE in the general ICU—a minireview. Acta Aanaesthesiol Scand 48:827–836View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Orme RM, Oram MP, McKinstry CE (2009) Impact of echocardiography on patient management in the intensive care unit: an audit of district general hospital practice. Br J Anaesth 102:340–344PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Charron C, Caille V, Jardin F, Vieillard-Baron A (2006) Echocardiographic measurement of fluid responsiveness. Curr Opin Crit Care 12:249–254Google Scholar
- Bouferrachea K, Caille V, Chimot L, Castro S, Charron C, Page B, Vieillard-Baron A (2010) Monitorage hémodynamique dans le sepsis: confrontation des recommandations de la Surviving Sepsis Campaign à l’échocardiographie. Réanimation 19S:S32–S33 (Abst)Google Scholar
- Vieillard-Baron A, Charron C, Chergui C, Peuyrouset O, Jardin F (2006) Bedside echocardiographic evaluation of hemodynamics in sepsis: is a qualitative evaluation sufficient? Intensive Care Med 32:1547–1552PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Rivers E, Nguyen B, Havstad S, Ressler J, Muzzin A, Knoblich B, Peterson E, Tomlanovich M (2001) Early goal-directed therapy in the treatment of severe sepsis and septic shock. N Engl J Med 345:1368–1377PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Rivers EP, Coba V, Whitmill M (2008) Early goal-directed therapy in severe sepsis and septic shock: a contemporary review of the literature. Curr Opin Anesthesiol 21:128–140View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Zanotti Cavazzoni SL, Dellinger RP (2006) Hemodynamic optimization of sepsis-induced hypoperfusion. Crit Care 10(Suppl 6):S2PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Dellinger RP, Levy MM, Carlet JM, Bion J, Parker MM, Jaeschke R, Reinhart K, Angus DC, Brun-Buisson C, Beale R, Calandra T, Dhainaut JF, Gerlach H, Harvey M, Marini JJ, Marshall J, Ranieri M, Ramsay G, Sevransky J, Thompson BT, Townsend S, Vender JS, Zimmerman JL, Vincent JL (2008) Surviving Sepsis Campaign: international guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock: 2008. Intensive Care Med 36:296–327Google Scholar
- Jones AE, Tayal S, Sullivan M, Kline JA (2004) Randomized, controlled trial of immediate versus delayed goal-directed ultrasound to identify the cause of nontraumatic hypotension in emergency department patients. Crit Care Med 32:1703–1708PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Leung JM, Levine EH (1994) LV end systolic cavity obliteration as an estimate of intraoperative hypovolemia. Anesthesiology 81:1102–1109PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Lyon M, Blaivas M, Branman M et al (2005) Sonographic measurement of the inferior vena cava as a marker of blood loss. Am J Em Med 23:45–50View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Lichtenstein D, Jardin F (1994) Appréciation non invasive de la pression veineuse centrale par la mesure échogaphique deu calibre de la veine cave inférieure en réanimation. Réanimation Urg 3:79–82View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Cheung AT, Savino JS, Weiss SJ et al (1994) Echocardiographic and Hemodynamic indexes of LV preload in patients with normal and abnormal ventricular function. Anesthesiology 81:376–387PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Neri L, Storti E, Lichtenstein D (2007) Toward a ultrasound curriculum for critical care medicine. Crit Care Med 35(Suppl):S290–S304PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Lichtenstein D (2007) Point-of-care ultrasound: Infection control in the intensive care unit. Crit Care Med 35(Suppl):S262–S267PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Griffee MJ, Merkel MJ, Wei KS (2010) The role of echocardiography in hemodynamic assessment of septic shock. Crit Care Clin 26:365–368PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Hollenberg SM, Ahrens TS, Annane D, Astiz ME, Chalfin DB, Dasta JF, Heard SO, Martin C, Napolitano LM, Susla GM, Totaro R, Vincent JL, Zanotti-Cavazzoni S (2004) Practice parameters for hemodynamic support of sepsis in adult patients. 2004 update. Crit Care Med 32:1928–1948PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Feinberg MS, Hopkins WE, Davila-Roman VG, Barzilai B (1995) Multiplane transesophageal echocardiographic doppler imaging accurately determines cardiac output measurements in the critically ill patients. Chest 107:769–773PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Poelaert J, Schmidt C, Van Aken H, Hinder F, Mollhoff T, Loick HM (1999) A comparison of transoesophageal echocardiographic Doppler across the aortic valve and the thermodilution technique for estimating cardiac output. Anaesthesia 54:128–136PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Jardin F, Bourdarias JP (1995) Right heart catheterization at bedside: a critical view. Intensive Care Med 21:291–295PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Jardin F (1999) Persistent preload defect in severe sepsis despite fluid loading: a longitudinal echocardiographic study in patients with septic shock. Chest 116:1354–1359PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Feissel M, Michard F, Mangin I, Ruyer O, Faller JP, Teboul JL (2001) Respiratory changes in aortic blood velocity as an indicator of fluid responsiveness in ventilated patients with septic shock. Chest 119:867–873PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Barbier C, Loubières Y, Schmit C, Hayon J, Ricôme JL, Jardin F, Vieillard-Baron A (2004) Respiratory changes in inferior vena cava diameter are helpful in predicting fluid responsiveness in ventilated septic patients. Intensive Care Med 30:1740–1746PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Vieillard-Baron A, Chergui K, Rabiller A, Peyrouset O, Page B, Beau-chet A, Jardin F (2004) Superior vena caval collapsibility as a gauge of volume status in ventilated septic patients. Intensive Care Med 30:1734–1739PubMedGoogle Scholar
- De Backer D, Heenen S, Piagnerelli M, Koch M, Vincent JL (2005) Pulse pressure variations to predict fluid responsiveness: influence of tidal volume. Intensive Care Med 31:517–523Google Scholar
- Mahjoub Y, Pila C, Friggeri A, Zogheib E, Lobjoie E, Tinturier F, Galy C, Slama M, Dupont H (2009) Assessing fluid responsiveness in critically ill patients: False-positive pulse pressure variation is detected by Doppler echocardiographic evaluation of the right ventricle. Crit Care Med 37:2570–2575PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Lamia B, Ochagavia A, Monnet X, Osman D, Maizel J, Richard C, Chemla D (2007) Echocardiographic prediction of volume responsiveness in critically ill patients with spontaneous breathing activity. Int Care Med 32:1125–1132View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Mahjoub Y, Touzeau J, Airapetian N, Lorne E, Hijazi M, Zogheib E, Tinturier F, Slama M, Dupont H (2010) The passive leg-raising maneuver cannot accurately predict fluid responsiveness in patients with intra-abdominal hypertension. Crit Care Med 38:1824–1829PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Monnet X, Jabot J, Maizel J, Gharbi R, Richard C, Teboul J-L (2010) La noradrénaline réduit la précharge-dépendance en recrutant du volume sanguin non contraint chez les patients septiques. Réanimation 19S:S34 (Abst)Google Scholar
- Hamzaoui O, Georger JF, Monnet X, Ksouri H, Maizel J, Richard C, Teboul JL (2010) Early administration of norepinephrine increases cardiac preload and cardiac output in septic patients with life-threatening hypotension. Crit Care 14:R14View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Alsous F, Khamiees M, DeGirolamo A, Amoateng-Adjepong Y, Manthous CA (2000) Negative fluid balance predicts survival in patients with septic shock: a retrospective pilot study. Chest 117:1749–1754Google Scholar
- Rabeul C, Mebazaa A (2006) Septic shock: a heart story since the 1960s. Intensive Care Med 32:799–807View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Ellrodt AG (1985) LV performance in septic shock: reversible segmental and global abnormalities. Am Heart J 110:402–409PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Jardin F (1990) Sepsis-related cardiogenic shock. Crit Care Med 18:1055–1060PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Vieillard-Baron CailleV, Charron C et al (2008) The actual incidence of global left ventricular hypokinesia in adult septic shock. Crit Care Med 36:1701–1706PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Parker MM (1984) Profound but reversible myocardial depression in patients with septic shock. Ann Int Med 100:483–496PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Vieillard-Baron A (2001) Early preload adaptation in septic shock? A TEE study. Anesthesiology 94:400–406PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Bouhemad B, Nicolas-Robin A, Arbelot C, Arthaud M, Fégere F, Rouby J-J (2009) Acute left ventricular dilatation and shock-induced myocardial dysfunction. Crit Care Med 37:441–447PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Etchecopar-Chevreuil C, François B, Clavel M, Pichon N, Gastinne H, Vignon P (2008) Cardiac morphological and functional changes during early septic shock: a transesophageal echocardiographic study. Intensive Care Med 34:250–256PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Maeder M (2006) Sepsis-associated myocardial dysfunction: diagnostic and prognostic impact of cardiac troponins and natriuretic peptides. Chest 129:1349–1366PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Sado D, Greaves K (2010) Myocardial perfusion echocardiography: a novel use in the diagnosis of sepsis-induced left ventricular systolic impairment on the intensive care unit. Eur J Echocardiogr (Epub ahead of print)Google Scholar
- Kimchi A, Ellrodt AG, Berman DS, Riedinger MS, Swan HJ, Murata GH (1984) Right ventricular performance in septic shock: a combined radionuclide and hemodynamic study. JACC 4:945–951PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Sibbald WJ, Paterson NA, Holliday RL, Anderson RA, Lobb TR, Duff JH (1978) Pulmonary hypertension in sepsis: measurement by the pulmonary artery diastolic-pulmonary wedge pressure gradient and the influence of passive and active factors. Chest 73:583–591PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Vieillard-Baron A, Schmitt JM, Augarde R, Fellahi JL, Prin S, Page B, Beauchet A, Jardin F (2001) Acute cor pulmonale in ARDS submitted to protective ventilation: incidence, clinical implications, and prognosis. Crit Care Med 29:1551–1555PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Vieillard-Baron A, Jardin F (2007) Is there a safe plateau pressure in ARDS: the right heart only knows. Intensive Care Med 33:444–447PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Bouhemad B, Nicolas-Robin A, Arbelot C, Arthaud M, Fégere F, Rouby J-J (2008) Isolated and reversible impairment of ventricular relaxation in patients with septic shock. Crit Care Med 36:766–774PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Poelaert J, Declerck C, Vogelaers D, Colardyn F, Visser CA (1997) Left ventricular systolic and diastolic function in septic shock. Intensive Care Med 23:553–560PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Mousavi N, Czarnecki A, Ahmadie R, Tielan F, Kumar K, Lytwyn M, Kumar A, Jassal DS (2010) The utility of tissue Doppler imaging for the noninvasive determination of left ventricular filling pressures in patients with septic shock. J Intensive Care Med 25:163–167Google Scholar
- Vignon P, AitHssain A, François B, Preux PM, Pichon N, Clavel M, Frat JP, Gastinne H (2008) Echocardiographic assessment of pulmonary artery occlusion pressure in ventilated patients: a transoesophageal study. Crit Care 12:R18PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Boussuges A, Blanc P, Molenat F, Burnet H, Habib G, Sainty JM (2002) Evaluation of left ventricular filling pressure by transthoracic Doppler echocardiography in the intensive care unit. Crit Care Med 30:362–367PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Durack DT, Lukes AS, Bright DK (1994) New criteria for diagnosis of infective endocarditis: utilization of specific echocardiographic findings. Am J Med 96:200–209PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Li JS, Sexton DJ, Mick N, Nettles R, Fowler VG Jr, Ryan T, Bashore T, Corey GR (2000) Proposed modifications to Duke criteria for the diagnosis of infective endocarditis. Clin Infect Dis 30:633–638PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Mylonakis E, Calderwood SB (2001) Infective endocarditis in adults. NEJM 345:1318–1330PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Mourvillier B, Trouillet JL, Timsit JF, Baudot J, Chastre J, Régnier B, Gibert C, Wolff M (2004) Infective endocarditis in the ICU: clinical spectrum and prognostic factors in 228 consecutive patients. Intensive Care Med 30:2046–2052PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Perron JM (2001) Échocardiographie dans la prise en charge de l’endocardite infectiouse. Arch Mal Cœur 94:29–37Google Scholar
- Flachskampf FA, Daniel WG (2000) Role of TEE in infective endocarditis. Heart 84:3–4PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Erbel R, Rohmann S, Drexler M, Mohr-Kahaly S, Gerharz CD, Iversen S, Oelert H, Meyer J (1988) Improved diagnosis value of echocardigraphy in patients with infective endocarditis by TEE approach: a prospective study. Eur Heart J 9:45–53Google Scholar
- Roudaut R (1993) Appport diagnostique de l’échocardiographie transœsophagienne dans les endocardites infectieuses: fiabilité et limites. Arch Mal Cœur 86:1819–1823PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Lindner JR, Case RA, Dent JM, Abbott RD, Scheld WM, Kaul S (1996) Diagnostic value of echocardiography in suspected endocarditis. An evaluation based on the pretest probability of disease. Circulation 93:730–736PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Daniel WG, Mügge A, Grote J, Hausmann D, Nikutta P, Laas J, Lichtlen PR, Martin RP (1993) Comparison of TTE and TEE for detection of abnormalities of prosthestic and bioprosthetic valves in the mitral and aortic position. Am J Cardiol 71:210–215PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Victor F, De Place C, Camus C, Le Breton H, Leclercq C, Pavin D, Mabo P, Daubert C (1999) Pacemaker lead infection: echocardiographic features, management, and outcome. Heart 81:82–87PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Weber T, Huemer G, Tschernich H, Kranz A, Imhof M, Sladen RN (1998) Catheter-induced thrombus in the superior vena cava diagnosed by TEE. Acta Anaesth Scand 42:1227–1230PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Yamashita S, Noma K, Kuwata G, Miyoshi K, Honaga K (2005) Infective Endocarditis at the tricuspid valve following central venous catheterization. J Anesth 19:84–87PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Cohen GI, Klein AL, Chan KL, Stewart WJ, Salcedo EE (1992) TEE diagnosis of right sided cardiac mass in patients with central lines. Am J Cardiol 70:925–929PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Vilacosta I, Sarriá C, San Román JA, Jiménez J, Castillo JA, Iturralde E, Rollán MJ, Martínez Elbal L (1994) Usefulness of TEE for diagnosis of infected transvenous permanent pacemakers. Circulation 89:2684–2687PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Garcia E, Granier I, Geissler A, Boespflug MD, Magnan PE, Durand-Gasselin J (1997) Surgical management of Candida suppurative thrombophlebitis of superior vena cava after central venous catheterization. Intensive Care Med 23:1002–1004PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Rowley KM, Clubb KS, Smith GJ, Cabin HS (1984) Right-sided infective endocarditis as a consequence of flow-directed pulmonary-artery catheterization. NEJM 311:1152–1156PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar